ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked-

Work Programme

Elizabeth Truss: What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

Jeremy Lefroy: What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

Sarah Newton: What progress he has made on contracting arrangements for the Work programme.

Chris Grayling: Happy new year, Mr Speaker. We published the full invitation to tender for the Work programme shortly before Christmas. Would-be bidders have until early February to submit their bids and we remain on track to launch the Work programme in the summer.

Elizabeth Truss: Downham Market has a community payback scheme that was initiated by volunteers. How will the community payback scheme fit with the Work programme, in which those volunteers are keen to get involved, as well as with voluntary work in my constituency?

Chris Grayling: That is an important point because many of those who go on to the Work programme will be former offenders or, in some cases, people going through community payback who are on welfare. I am in close contact with my colleagues in the Department for Justice and we are working together to try to ensure that we integrate their work on rehabilitating offenders with our work to get former offenders back into work.

Jeremy Lefroy: In my constituency of Stafford, a number of local voluntary organisations and social enterprises are committed to getting people back into work. What assurances can the Minister give us that they will be taken into account when it comes to awarding the sub-contracts under the main contractors?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are very clear that we want to see small local community, voluntary sector, social enterprise and private sector groups having the opportunity to work alongside major contractors in the Work programme. We have been very clear to would-be prime contractors that if they do not bring together a consortium of smaller organisations that demonstrate the breadth of skills necessary to deliver support to all the different groups that will be helped under the Work programme, they will not be successful in their bids. That is of paramount importance.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome the assurances we have received from the Minister about the small-scale organisations that are being brought in to the larger contracting. What assurances can he give my constituents and others in Cornwall who benefit from EU convergence funding that the locally identified priorities under that programme and the excellent work that has been done to get hard-to-reach groups of people back into work will continue and will benefit from the Work programme?

Chris Grayling: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the moment, we are considering the next phase of the European social fund contracting. I am absolutely clear-indeed, the objectives of the scheme make it clear-that it must sit alongside the Work programme as part of a drive to help some of those who are furthest from the workplace to make the move back into work and to lift them out of poverty. That will remain a priority for us.

Christopher Leslie: Is not the Work programme undermined from the outset by the cuts that the Minister is making to the child care component of the working tax credit, which will hit families in my constituency to the tune of some £500 a year? Why is he instituting such a disincentive to work?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman has to remember the financial mess his Government left behind. If we do not sort out the deficit and create a stable economic environment in this country, there will not be secure jobs in the future. That is and will remain our No. 1 priority.

Chuka Umunna: On Thursday, I visited my borough's alcohol and drugs service and spoke to service users and providers. One of the biggest problems found by people who have a history of misuse is moving from treatment into work. I hope that the Work programme will address that, particularly given the issues that I have been told that they have with Jobcentre Plus. We are told that the pricing system in the new programme will reward providers who help those who are hardest to reach. Will that pricing structure account for those with a history of alcohol and drug misuse?

Chris Grayling: The simple answer to that question is yes, it will. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I want to refer to one other dimension of the issue. A key point is giving those people opportunities to volunteer while claiming benefit. Volunteering can be an extremely important part of the pathway from a long-term problem into work. We have changed the guidance for Jobcentre Plus and will proactively promote volunteering opportunities to those who face those challenges in the hope that we will help them take that extra step on the way.

Stephen Timms: Just before Christmas, the all-party Select Committee on Work and Pensions-may I be the first to congratulate its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), on her well deserved honour in the new year's list?-warned of a looming gap between the future jobs fund closing to new referrals of young people at the end of March and the start of the Work programme in June. In an article this morning, the Secretary of State, commenting on rising youth unemployment, promised that
	"the programmes we inherited will remain in place until we replace them later this year."
	Can we therefore take it that referrals to the future jobs fund will continue until June?

Chris Grayling: I start by offering my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). There are moments when awards are acclaimed in all parts of the House, and hers certainly has been.
	We have already extended the contracts for all the legacy programmes, which people will take advantage of until June. There will be people on the future jobs fund in the new financial year, and we are working through the detail of the transition for the final few weeks before people join the Work programme. Obviously, some people will be referred for a short period before the start of the Work programme, and we will negotiate with the would-be contractors to ensure a smooth transition. Our goal is to ensure that there is proper continuity for all those who need specialist support.

Pensioner Income

Gregg McClymont: What assessment his Department has made of the effects of changes to prices in January 2011 on the incomes of pensioners.

Steve Webb: In April this year, benefits and pensions will be increased by more than £4 billion, more than three quarters of which will go to pensioners. In addition, price rises in January 2011 will feed through into the September 2011 price indices, which will be used in future benefit uprating.

Gregg McClymont: Pensioners on fixed incomes will be among the hardest hit by the Government's VAT rise. Will the Minister confirm that the VAT hike will mean that pensioners are worse off in 2011 under this Government than they would have been under the previous Government's plans?

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the previous Government's plans. In his constituency, vulnerable pensioners, vulnerable disabled people and vulnerable families with young children received four or five cold weather payments this winter to help them with their fuel bills in January 2011. His policy, and the plans that we inherited, would have reduced those payments to £8.50 a week. We have paid £25 a week four or five times to vulnerable pensioners in his constituency.

Rachel Reeves: I will give the Minister another try: will he accept that with pensioners set to pay an extra £217 in 2011 because of the VAT rise, the basic state pension rising by only the same amount as planned by the previous Government and now news that the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury cannot agree the £140 flat-rate pension that he has extolled, pensioners have very little to look forward to in 2011 but a lot to fear?

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady used to be an economist, so I would not dream of suggesting that any of the figures that she has quoted are in the slightest bit dodgy. She will be aware that colleagues at Her Majesty's Treasury have calculated that the impact of the VAT rise for each percentage point increase is just less than £1 a week for single pensioners. The 2.5% increase will cost pensioners £2.50 a week, which compares with our £4.50 pension increase this April, and there will be additional increases in 2012 because of the VAT rise, so I dispute her figures.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Si�n James: What sanctions will be applied to jobseeker's allowance claimants who fail to find work within the period set by his Department.

Iain Duncan Smith: There is no time limit on entitlement to income-based jobseeker's allowance. I remind the hon. Lady that the conditions that pertain to withdrawal of benefit are that individuals must be available for work and seeking work, and they have to sign up to an agreement. If they continually refuse to do any of that, that is when the sanctions come in.

Si�n James: I am aware that those sanctions will be applied after a decision by the independent decision maker. What reassurances can the Minister give me about the role of the independent decision maker and the criteria that will be used? I am particularly concerned about the appeal process, because, as one can imagine, mistakes can be made and there should be a right of appeal. I am keen that that right is open to anybody who is sanctioned in that way.

Iain Duncan Smith: We will strengthen the role of the independent decision maker to ensure that decisions are made for the right reasons. The hon. Lady can rest assured that we will ensure that is the case. If she has any concerns, she should raise them with us, and if she has any thoughts, we are open to dispute.

Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that one implication of this question is that jobs are not available in the marketplace? Just before Christmas, we conducted a survey in my constituency, where there were more than 700 job vacancies. People from Swansea are as welcome to take up those job vacancies as people from anywhere else in the country.

Iain Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right. Over the past nine months, we have seen a huge increase in part-time work with more than 400,000 new jobs.  [ Interruption. ] The answer to Labour Members is that jobs are being created even though we are coming out of a recession, which was brought on by their policies.

Douglas Alexander: The Secretary of State's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), has said of the Government's plans for the long-term unemployed:
	You have been unemployed for 12 months, you are passing the actively seeking work test...we are/the Government is saying that your housing benefit will be cut by 10% just because you have been unemployed for 12 months. I don't understand why. You are on the breadline, you've been trying to look for work, you're passing all the Government tests and you're suddenly going to have your rent, which is your highest cost-your help with that-taken down by 10%. No logic behind that whatsoever.
	Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House with which part of that statement he disagrees?

Iain Duncan Smith: The reality is that the coalition-I emphasise coalition-position is that we will withdraw some of that money, 10%, before the 12 month point. The point about the 12-month stage is that more than 90% of all those seeking work will be in work by that point. That gives us an opportunity to make sure that those who are having the greatest difficulty can be properly reassessed, and if there are particular problems, they can be dealt with. It also acts as a spur and incentive to others who are not exactly playing the game in line with the question asked by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James). On balance, I think the coalition will find that the policy will work very well.

Douglas Alexander: I listened with care to that answer, but given that the number of people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months, on the broader measure, went up by 41,000 in the most recent figures, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Business Minister is the only member of the coalition who thinks that the present proposals are unsupportable?

Iain Duncan Smith: That is like my asking whether the right hon. Gentleman's leader and his shadow Chancellor agree on everything, which I do not think they do. The coalition has a clear statement of policy and that policy exists. The reality of that policy is exactly as he has been debating and I would not trouble him to find out exactly what he agrees with his leader about after this morning's statement that his side apparently now agree with most of the changes we are making.

Disabled Jobseekers

Jane Ellison: What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

David Evennett: What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

Maria Miller: The coalition Government have an ongoing commitment to co-production, which involves disabled people in how our policies develop. The Government also regularly meet charities and voluntary organisations to discuss new policy ideas. For example. Mind, Mencap and the National Autistic Society are working with Professor Harrington as part of the independent review of the work capability assessment. On 2 December 2010, I also announced an independent review into specialist employment support for disabled people led by Liz Sayce, the chief executive of RADAR-the Royal Association for Disability Rights.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Minister for that response. One of my disabled constituents uses the access to work travel assistance, which has helped him into a full-time job, but he finds the monthly form-filling quite onerous and believes that his case is handled by several different people. Does the Minister have any plans to streamline the system and reduce the burden of paperwork on disabled people, perhaps by putting some of it online?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and underline the Government's commitment to access to work. The monthly claim form is kept as simple as possible but we really have to make sure that we are protecting public funds, so we require confirmation that a customer has been in work during the month and any receipts. We must also make sure that we have a confirming signature. Such documents would go straight to one of our payments team and would, I hope, be dealt with quickly, with the payment being made directly into the customer's bank account. If my hon. Friend's constituent is having particular problems, I advise her perhaps to seek further help at Jobcentre Plus. We understand the importance of refining the administration of access to work. That is why we have introduced the pre-employment eligibility letter-to give individuals assurance about their eligibility for access to work funding when they are looking for a job, not just after they have secured it.

David Evennett: I thank the Minister for her response and commend the work she is doing in this field. Voluntary organisations in my borough of Bexley are very keen to assist the disabled into work and many are already doing so. What more can the Government do to help utilise the talent and skills of disabled people in the work force?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I absolutely endorse his wish to have more local organisations involved in helping to get disabled people back into work. I know that through the Work Choice programme that we launched last year we already have Scope and the Shaw Trust actively working in his constituency in providing support for disabled people. I encourage him to ask more of his local organisations to get involved in that and other schemes.

Kate Green: The Minister will be aware that anyone who has come off incapacity benefit to move into work in the past two years was promised a two-year linking period, during which they could return to the benefit at the original rate. The new employment and support allowance conversion regulations, which are due to take effect next month, remove that protection, and those returning to work will be required to return to the ESA at the assessment rate for the first 13 weeks. Will the Minister urgently reconsider those new regulations, and their impact on a small number of benefit claimants who appear to have been affected by the backtracking on a commitment on which many of them had relied?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady brings up a very detailed point, and I should be very pleased to look at it with her separately, but I should underline the fact that in all the changes we are making, we want to make sure that we are judging disabled people on what they can do, not what they cannot, and we want to make sure that more disabled people are able to get back into work. At the moment, 50% of disabled people work, and many more want to, with the right support.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Minister will be aware that the employment and support allowance has largely superseded incapacity benefit. In week 11, the claimant is assessed by a medical board. What plans does the Minister have to involve a claimant's GP in future assessments, so that we can ensure that they are more accurate, as opposed to being a snapshot at week 11?

Maria Miller: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision maker will have access to all the medical records of any individual involved in that sort of process.

Enterprise Allowance

Andrew Bridgen: What recent progress he has made on the introduction of the enterprise allowance.

Chris Grayling: I am pleased to say that last week we announced that the new enterprise allowance would expand to become a nationwide scheme from next autumn. It will first be launched in Merseyside in about three weeks' time, and it will be rolled out across those parts of the country that have a particular unemployment challenge from spring onwards.

Andrew Bridgen: I welcome the fact that the enterprise allowance scheme, which had such a positive effect in the 1980s, is being reinstated. However, I have a concern about the eligibility criteria: one has to have been unemployed for six months or more to be eligible. The National Audit Office noted in the 1980s that the longer someone spent on unemployment benefit before going into self-employment, the less successful that tended to be. Given that, will the Minister consider reducing that time and allowing people who have been unemployed for less than six months to go on to the scheme?

Chris Grayling: I would very much like to improve the support that we provide, but obviously we have to do that in the context of the finances that we have inherited from the Opposition. The big difference that the new scheme will make is that it will also take advantage of the expertise of existing business people. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a strong track record in business, will look to become a mentor for one of the new business people. That is an important difference from the previous scheme; the new scheme offers both financial and practical support, and not just financial support.

Denis MacShane: Enterprise allowance will work all the better if young people are educated into the idea of creating their own businesses, yet thousands of people from Rotherham and other parts of south Yorkshire who go into work experience via the education business partnership scheme do not know whether the scheme will be continued. It is funded by the Department for Education, but we do not know whether it will be cut or continued. Could the Minister's Department talk to the Department for Education and get a bit of joined-up government on this?

Chris Grayling: One of the things that we are doing is introducing changes to the guidelines to ensure that young people who find themselves unemployed have a much greater opportunity to get work experience in enterprises while they are on benefits. We have also announced tens of thousands of extra apprenticeships to give young people the chance to get involved in, and understand, business. Young people will be among those who are eligible to take advantage of the new enterprise allowance, if they are unfortunate enough to find themselves unemployed.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Chi Onwurah: What information his Department holds on the average cost to the public purse of an additional person being on jobseeker's allowance in 2010-11.

Iain Duncan Smith: Today, the JSA rate for a person over 25 is, as the hon. Lady knows, £65.45, and that will rise in April to £67.50. In 2010-11, the average weekly JSA rate was about £63.00. In addition, there are housing benefit, council tax benefit and employment support costs. However, the vast majority of jobseekers spend only a very short time in that situation; over half are back in work within 3 months.

Chi Onwurah: According to the New Economics Foundation, there is a jobs gap in the north-east of 447,000 jobs, and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that we will lose an additional 4.1% of our total jobs base as a result of this Government's cuts. Ministers have spoken about help for the longer-term unemployed, which I welcome, but what assurances can the Secretary of State provide that those additional job losses will not simply represent additional benefit payments, as well as lives wasted?

Iain Duncan Smith: The question that the hon. Lady asks is a pertinent one. The Work programme that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was just speaking about is to make sure that those who go beyond a certain point at differing levels are swept up because they have particular problems. We need to deal intensively with them and use the private and voluntary sector. But to help earlier, Jobcentre Plus has been pretty successful at getting people matched up with the work that they need to be in and getting them back into work. When it comes to skills, the Government are increasing the number of apprenticeships-50,000 rising to 75,000 extra-which will help hugely with skilling, and the mentoring and work for yourself programme, which are part of the Work programme, will have a huge impact, by advising young people and enabling them to take the right jobs and get the right skills. The hon. Lady is right. Skilling up is important, but we think we will be on the right track to do that. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that employment will rise over the period.

Karen Buck: Does the Secretary of State accept the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, revealed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), that an extra two thirds of a billion pounds will be spent on housing benefit as a result of rising unemployment over the next four years?

Iain Duncan Smith: The OBR is independent and the Government of course accept what it publishes as independent figures. We go by what the OBR's figures say. As the hon. Lady knows, we inherited a financial mess left by the previous Government. What we are doing is to make sure that we reduce the ballooning cost of, for example, housing benefit that she left behind-a bill that doubled in the past five years. [Official Report, 12 January 2011, Vol. 521, c. 6MC.]

Unfair Dismissal (Age)

Robert Halfon: When he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unfair dismissal on grounds of age.

Michael Ellis: When he plans to bring forward proposals to prevent unfair dismissal of staff on grounds of age.

Iain Duncan Smith: We are moving in that direction. Our changes will abolish the default retirement age, and we will make sure that people can no longer be kicked out of work because they have reached a certain age. By getting rid of that, we will improve the economy and help older people find work for a longer period, which is beneficial to the economy and beneficial for those people.

Robert Halfon: In the recession redundancies have been higher among the over-50s than any other age group, including in Harlow. Many people, like my constituent, Kevin Forbes, who applied for more than 4,500 jobs, are worried that employment law is biased against older people. What are the Government doing, apart from what my right hon. Friend has just described, to make work fairer for the over-50s?

Iain Duncan Smith: The reality for companies and for those who are seeking work is that, because of the need for employment over the next few years, we will need more and more of the skills that are present in the age group to which my hon. Friend refers. Therefore, companies have to reach the sensible solution, which is that people who have those skills and ways of doing their jobs can stay in work much longer. The Work programme will be set up so that they can be helped back into work if they become unemployed. My concern is that companies should recognise that older workers have huge value, well beyond the cost of paying their wages.

Michael Ellis: Constituents in Northampton have raised with me the fact that they have been forced to retire because of their age before they were ready to do so. As I know my right hon. Friend accepts, older people offer a wealth of experience and skill. What progress have the Government made on the consultation on the default retirement age?

Iain Duncan Smith: The consultation has gone very well. We are sifting through the responses. There have been more responses than we anticipated. The vast majority have been positive, although there are some, in some areas of business, that were not as positive as we had hoped. We will publish those results and press on. I can guarantee to my hon. Friend and the rest of the House that we will press on with the issue.

Toby Perkins: I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State is keen to extend fairness to workers. It is important that people are not discriminated against, regardless of their age. Does he agree that unfair dismissal is unfair dismissal whenever it takes place, and that any steps that the Government take that make it easier for unscrupulous employers to sack people without the right of appeal will be a retrograde step?

Iain Duncan Smith: I am not aware of any plans to change that. I agree that it is important that older workers in particular are recognised for the skills and benefits that they bring to the company concerned. Whatever changes are made, we must recognise that it should not be easier to get rid of somebody for the wrong reasons. If an employer has the right reason for getting rid of somebody, that is one thing, but people who are working hard should not lose their jobs just because they are older.

Ian Lucas: Will the Secretary of State assure older people that he will not make it more difficult for them to pursue unfair dismissal claims by lengthening the qualification period for claims?

Iain Duncan Smith: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he asks a question that is a direct concern of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. However, from our point of view I have no such plans. It is a matter that he might wish to raise with the relevant Department.

Fixed-interest Income Bonds

Bob Stewart: What assistance his Department provides to pensioners who rely on fixed-interest income bonds.

Steve Webb: For pensioners with savings, the Government ignore the first £10,000 of their capital when assessing them for pension credit, as a result of which almost nine out of 10 pension credit applicants have no capital taken account of at all. In addition, to support all pensioners the basic state pension will rise by £4.50 this April and the standard minimum guarantee for pension credit by £4.75.

Bob Stewart: About one third of my constituents are on pensions, which are often very small. What plans do the Government have to help older people who live on small incomes for which they have saved all their lives to build up?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend raises the very important point that falling interest rates and rates of return on savings tend to affect older people in particular. When we look at state pension reform, the return to saving and the reward for saving will be a particular priority for us. Many pensioners have their savings in very low-interest accounts, sometimes paying as little as 0.1%. There are much better rates out there, and I encourage all pensioners to shop around extensively to find the best rates possible.

Pension Credit

Owen Smith: What estimate he has made of the number of people in receipt of pension credit who will receive reduced payments as a result of the change to the timetable for the equalisation of the state pension age.

Steve Webb: Just to be clear, no one currently receiving pension credit will have reduced payments at all because of the revised state pension age timetable. In future, however, we anticipate that about 120,000 households could be affected by the increase in the pension credit qualifying age as a result of the change to the equalisation timetable between 2016 and 2020.

Owen Smith: Given that we know that the poorest pensioners are some of those who will be hardest hit by the Government's changes in respect of equalisation, will the Minister consider de-linking entirely the increase in the qualifying age for pension credit, which is paid only to the poorest, and the increase in the threshold for women's pensions? He says that he is worried that the relationship with his Tory masters is a bit cosy; here is an opportunity for him to strike a rare, Liberal, fair blow.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right that, on average, people of lower social classes and on lower incomes tend to have a shorter life expectancy. The good news is that life expectancy is rising for people on all income levels, so as we raise the state pension age, it is only right and proper that we raise the starting point for pension credit. It would be very strange to go on paying at 60 something called pension credit when the state pension age rises, as under the previous Government's plans, to 66, 67 and 68.

Anne Begg: In a reply to a written answer, the Minister admitted that half a million women will have to carry on working for longer than a year as a result of accelerating the equalisation of the state retirement age. In particular, women who were born in 1954 and expected to retire in 2018 aged 64 will not now get their state pension until they are 66 in 2020. That strikes me as incredibly unfair. What is the Minister going to do about it?

Steve Webb: The hon. Lady is right: of the 5 million people who will be affected by the increase in the state pension, a relatively small group age will be affected as she describes. It would be an option to go more slowly, as the previous Government did, but, if we deferred all changes until 2020 in order to deal with the point that she makes, it would cost an extra £10 billion. Once again, we have a suggestion for £10 billion of extra spending but no suggestion of where the £10 billion might come from.

Welfare Reform (Multiple Births)

Tom Greatrex: What recent assessment he has made of the likely effects of his welfare reform proposals on families with multiple births.

Iain Duncan Smith: The changes that we have proposed for welfare reform are intended to make work pay for everyone and to tailor specific back-to-work help to meet individual circumstances. Approximately 10,000 births in the UK are multiple births, from a total number of 800,000 births.
	Reforms to the Sure Start maternity grant have protected cases where the first birth is a multiple birth; the Sure Start maternity grant will be payable for all children when the first birth is a multiple. I would welcome any further views or thoughts from anybody about what they feel we ought to be doing about this issue.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply and declare an interest, as the father of one-year-old twins.
	Although having twins is a very rewarding privilege, it is, as has been remarked before, often a case of two for the price of three. Research undertaken by the New Policy Institute on behalf of the Twins and Multiple Births Association, or TAMBA, shows that multiple-birth families will suffer more than most under the proposed reforms. May I ask the Secretary of State whether he or one of his Ministers will meet me and representatives of TAMBA to discuss some of the perhaps unintended consequences of their reform proposals for families with multiple births?

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his twins; I have four children, and one at a time was quite enough. I hope that he benefits greatly from that double-up. We will definitely see him and any group that he wishes to lead to discuss the matter further.

Duncan Hames: I welcome the Government's decision to pay a maternity grant for each child when the first birth is a multiple birth, but does the Secretary of State not accept that parents can face exceptional costs when a multiple birth follows an earlier, single birth? Could he not apply the same rationale and pay the maternity grant in those circumstances?

Iain Duncan Smith: The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is complicated. We are looking at it and discussing it, and I am happy to take it further with him if he wishes. However, it does add complications to an already complicated system.

Claimant Count (Wellingborough)

Peter Bone: What his most recent forecast is of the claimant count in (a) Wellingborough and (b) the UK in 2011-12.

Chris Grayling: The Department for Work and Pensions does not itself produce forecasts of unemployment. However, the latest UK claimant count forecast for 2011-12, published as part of the Office for Budget Responsibility's autumn forecast, was 1.52 million at the start of 2011-12, falling to 1.47 million at the end of the financial year. I am afraid that no figures are produced at constituency level looking ahead.
	Having watched the skill of my hon. Friend over the years in combating the former Chancellor and Prime Minister over the increased level of unemployment in his constituency compared with 1997, I am relieved to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and note that unemployment today is lower than it was under the previous Government. Let us hope that it stays that way.

Peter Bone: I thank the Minister for his kind words. Every Labour Government have left power with unemployment higher than when they came to power. When they came to power, unemployment in Wellingborough was 1,826; when they left, the figure was 2,916-an increase of 60%. Does the Minister agree that the Labour party is the party of unemployment and the Conservatives are the party of employment?

Mr Speaker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's question with some delectation, but sadly it relates not to the policy of the Government but to that of the Opposition. I call Mr David Winnick.

David Winnick: In view of some of the propaganda put out by the Government and their supporters, saying that unemployed people are reluctant to find work, I should tell the Minister that over the past few weeks the local press in my area has reported that where there are vacancies, more than 100 people have applied for one single vacancy. Does that not demonstrate that up and down the country the unemployed are desperate to find work?

Chris Grayling: I have never doubted that there are very large numbers of people on benefits who want work. Our challenge is to make sure that there are sustainable jobs for the future. That is why we are investing in apprenticeships, trying to create a better climate for business and trying to make Britain a good place to create employment for the future. The great tragedy of the past decade is that the previous Government failed to do those things in good times.

Alison McGovern: No one in the House wants to see the claimant count rise-most especially, no one wants young people to have to add themselves to the rolls of the unemployed. Given what has happened in the past few months, does the Minister now think that summarily cancelling the future jobs fund was the right choice?

Chris Grayling: The whole problem with the future jobs fund was that, first, it was extremely expensive-twice as expensive as the new deal for young people; and secondly, it did not create long-term jobs. This Government believe in creating apprenticeships, which create skills that lead to a career, not in six-month expensive work placements that lead nowhere.

Disabled Jobseekers

Eric Ollerenshaw: What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

Maria Miller: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) earlier today.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I raise the example of a constituent who is almost entirely blind-among a number of other disabilities-and is trying to set up his own business. As hon. Members can imagine, that involves a lot of communication with the local DWP office. My constituent needs that communication to be in an e-mailable form because he has a machine that will read the message for him in confidence without personal information being seen by his carer. The local office has said that it can send communication only by letter, citing security as a reason. Will the Minister look into that unsatisfactory situation?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I share his concern about the rigidity of the rules regarding e-mail and the effects that they can have on certain aspects of the running of the Department. I assure him that we will be looking at that.

Russell Brown: Figures show that people with a disability find it more difficult to enter the workplace. What discussions has the Minister had with her ministerial colleagues from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about the number of employers who are showing a genuine interest in employing people with a disability?

Maria Miller: I not only have discussions with BIS, but have gone out to talk to employers about their commitments to employing disabled people. There are some great examples of major and smaller employers who have a real commitment to ensuring that disabled people have a level playing field when it comes to taking on jobs. Through that and the support provided by access to work and other programmes that the Government are running, I am sure that we can help more disabled people to get back into gainful employment.

Bob Russell: Is the Minister satisfied that the people who operate the Motability scheme and those who sit in judgment on appeal tribunals are aware that the Government's intention is to encourage disabled people into work? Those people should not drive disabled people who had work out of work by taking away their Motability cars.

Maria Miller: I can assure my hon. Friend that we greatly value Motability's work in supporting not only disabled people who are in employment, but disabled people who are not in employment. We will be ensuring that that scheme is robust into the future. Many thousands of people enjoy the support of Motability and get great value from it.

Pensions (Administrative Burden)

Andrea Leadsom: What steps he is taking to reduce the burden of administration on businesses arising from pension provision.

Steve Webb: We are taking forward the recommendations of the independent making automatic enrolment work review, many of which were aimed specifically at making automatic enrolment in workplace pensions more straightforward for employers.

Andrea Leadsom: I thank the Minister for his answer. Although it is crucial that the Government do everything possible to get people to save for their retirement, does he agree that currently it is even more critical to reduce the burden of red tape and bureaucracy which is preventing small businesses from creating the new jobs we desperately need?

Steve Webb: My hon. Friend is right to suggest that we need to minimise the burden of quality workplace pension provision on firms. When the pensions Bill is published, she will see that all the changes we are making to the provision for enrolment in workplace pensions are deregulatory and will reduce the cost and burden for firms.

Disabled Jobseekers

Margot James: What recent representations he has received on his plans to help disabled jobseekers into work.

Maria Miller: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier.

Margot James: I thank the Minister for her earlier response. I have been concerned that the number of people with mental health disabilities referred straight on to jobseeker's allowance has been greater than the number of people with physical disabilities. Can the Minister give an assurance that those undertaking workplace capability assessments will have access to high quality mental health expertise, and will she or the Minister responsible meet representatives of mental health charities from my constituency?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. That issue was looked at in detail as part of the Harrington review. The Government accepted all the recommendations put forward by Harrington and I assure her that mental health champions-one of the proposals put forward-will be in place by March. I believe that the Minister for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), will be meeting my hon. Friend to discuss those matters further.

Stephen Lloyd: Although I support the recent changes to access to work, which have offered a reassurance to prospective employers that they will be able to use ATW, I am concerned that the money available is to be reduced. Will the Minister reassure me that the access to work fund will always be adequate as the Government's policies rightly help more disabled people back into work?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I can reassure him about the Government's commitment to access to work. I can go one stage further and say that more people will receive support from access to work this year than received it in the final year of the previous Government, and that that support will continue. We will be considering how we can make access to work provide really good value for disabled people and for the taxpayer.

Severe Weather (Vulnerable People)

Henry Smith: What assistance his Department has provided to vulnerable people during the recent period of severe weather.

Steve Webb: This winter we have paid a record £427 million in cold weather payments, with 17 million separate payments.

Henry Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Can he confirm that, contrary to various scare stories that we have heard in recent weeks, cold weather payments will continue into the future?

Steve Webb: As my hon. Friend suggests, there are two systems of support during the winter months: the winter fuel payment, which the Chancellor has confirmed will continue on exactly the basis budgeted for by the previous Government; and the cold weather payments, which will not continue on the basis budgeted for by the previous Government because they were going to cut them by two thirds and we are going to keep them at £25 a week.

Luciana Berger: The Minister went some way towards answering my question about what is going to happen to the winter fuel payment, but can he categorically confirm that we will not see any changes to it in the next economic year?

Steve Webb: To reiterate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it quite clear in his comprehensive spending review statement that we will be sticking to the budgeted plans for winter fuel payments for future winters.

Topical Questions

Jessica Lee: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am concerned that the figures show that some 600,000 16 to 24-year-olds in the UK have never held regular work since leaving education. While this is a tragedy for them, it is part of a much longer-term problem that is not just to do with the recession. Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds stood at about the same level in 2008 as it had in 1997, despite some £3 billion spent on young people via the new deal and other programmes. That is why we are planning to phase out the old schemes with the new enterprise allowance scheme and the new Work programme and provide for 75,000 more apprenticeships as part of our package to improve the situation.

Jessica Lee: I am particularly concerned about the 820 young people in my constituency who are starting the year without a job. I spent some time in my local jobcentre in Ilkeston before Christmas, and I am very impressed with the efforts being made by staff there to help young people. However, can my right hon. Friend assist the House by setting out what efforts the Government are making at this time to help young people to access apprenticeships and skills training?

Iain Duncan Smith: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government are increasing the number of additional apprenticeships from 50,000 to 75,000 over the period of this Parliament. We are also bringing forward the Work programme. It is interesting to note that young people who have been out of work for a long time, as that is defined, will be entering the Work programme a month earlier than they would have done under the new deal for young people, which will be very good for them. Prior to that, jobcentres will work very closely with young people to make sure that they get the right choices and opportunities. It is worth noting that we are also doing an awful lot in trying to get those who are still at school set ready for the world of work when they leave school.

Douglas Alexander: On the subject of unemployment, the Government are meeting businesses in Downing street today and asking them to create jobs, but in its latest forecast published since the last DWP questions, the Office for Budget Responsibility revised upwards its unemployment forecasts for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Does this not confirm that it is as a direct result of the Government's macro-economic judgments that the unemployment queue is now forecast to be longer and the unemployment bill to be higher?

Iain Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget the financial situation that we inherited from his Government. I know that it is an uncomfortable fact, but the reality is that we had a major recession and we are taking the decisions that are necessary to get this economy back on track. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the OBR forecast, he will see that we are going to create many more new jobs and that unemployment will be falling all the way through the rest of this Parliament.

David Tredinnick: I have recently received a number of complaints that jobcentres are sending applicants for jobs to which they are not at all suited. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that with the introduction of the integrated Work programme, there will be new checks and balances to ensure that applicants are not sent for jobs for which they are totally unsuitable?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we try to match individuals with the vacancies that are best suited to them. Under the Work programme, providers will not be paid if they do not give people the right opportunities and they do not get the jobs, because there is a payment by results system. That system is the best route to ensure that those who are on benefits for the longer term get the best possible support and access to vacancies.

Kevan Jones: There has been a move from up-front, face-to-face contact at the jobcentre to more telephone systems. What plans do the Government have to reintroduce more face-to-face contact in jobcentres throughout the UK?

Chris Grayling: We welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House after a breathless new year. We intend to find the right mix between the different channels of access to Jobcentre Plus. Many younger claimants prefer to access services online, many claimants prefer to deal with such matters face to face, and others are happy to apply for benefits and deal with such matters over the phone. The trick is to get the right mix, and that is what we will seek to do.

Christopher Pincher: Atos Healthcare, which provides the Department's medical examiners, has told me that it does not provide physiotherapy services in its assessments of incapacity benefit claimants. Will Ministers consider including core physiotherapy checks for Atos so that people who are in genuine need of help and those who claim to have bad backs but are not in such genuine need can be better identified?

Chris Grayling: I am a little confused by my hon. Friend's experience, because tests and assessments of people's physical capabilities are carried out under the work capability assessment. Our goal is to ensure that the WCA continues to improve and is the best possible mechanism. I am happy to talk to him about his constituents' experiences.

Bridget Phillipson: Further to the Secretary of State's previous answer, will he confirm that unemployment will return to pre-recession levels by the end of the Parliament?

Iain Duncan Smith: We stand by the OBR forecast that unemployment will rise slightly in the coming year and, thereafter, will fall year on year.

John Glen: My constituent William Pender approached me to say that the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance from his son, who resides in a state-funded care home, will leave his son more isolated, because the care home can provide only limited trips out. I invite the Minister to confirm that the full and true nature of my constituent's mobility needs will be properly catered for under the new system after the reforms.

Maria Miller: Local authorities' contracts with care homes cover daily living activities, which may include providing access to doctors, dentists and local services such as libraries and banks. In addition, care homes have an obligation to help residents to pursue their independence. Our proposals will therefore remove an overlap in public funding.

Barry Gardiner: The Government's ethnic minority impact assessment of the housing benefit changes states that it is not possible, because of a lack of data, to make a proper assessment. In my constituency, it is estimated that 8,500 people will be displaced. On the register, 64% of claimants are from ethnic minority backgrounds. That rises to 83% and 84% for the most vulnerable groups of those in temporary accommodation and those in houses of more than four people. Will the Government assure me that they will do what they said they might do and conduct further research into the disproportionate impact that the changes will have on ethnic minorities?

Steve Webb: I do not recognise the estimate of 8,500 displaced families. We have made changes to the proposals so that the changes to housing benefit will be phased in and existing tenants will have nine months' protection starting from the anniversary of their claim, with the result that local authorities will have time to manage the transition and that there will be more direct payments to landlords, so we will be able to negotiate rents down. We will of course monitor the impact of the changes as they go on, but 8,500 displaced families is not a number that we recognise.

Sam Gyimah: Although I welcome the Government's payment by results model as a way of delivering value for the taxpayer, the challenge for a lot of small organisations is that it will pose huge cash-flow problems. They will have to deliver the work and pay their staff, and then they will be paid by the Government. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that small organisations that can deliver effective work programmes are not disfranchised by the Government's payment by results model?

Chris Grayling: I recognise the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, which is one reason why we have been absolutely clear to would-be bidders for the prime contracts for the Work programme that we expect them not simply to build but maintain a network of smaller providers. Where they have such cash-flow problems, it will be the big guys with the capital who are expected to carry the burden. In addition, we have put in place the Merlin standard, a code of conduct for contractors that basically states that if they do not do right by smaller organisations, and if they treat them badly commercially, they can lose their contracts.

Tom Greatrex: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the establishment of the York Disabled Workers Cooperative, in which former Remploy workers, with the support of the GMB union and others, have established a factory making garden furniture and other products and selling them directly to the public? Does that not show that there remains a place for supported employment factories in the UK, and will she bear that in mind in the context of the review of Remploy?

Maria Miller: I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the work of the York Disabled Workers Cooperative. It is important that we consider new ways of ensuring that organisations can help disabled people to have sustained employment, whether through social enterprises, Remploy's enterprise services or factories.

Jesse Norman: Special Metals Wiggin is a large and important employer in Hereford city, but it has several hundred pensioners who have not had an increase in their company pension since 1995 and who have therefore suffered a more than 50% loss in the value of their pensions. Will the Minister examine the matter, and is he prepared to meet pensioners' representatives to discuss it in more detail?

Steve Webb: I am happy to look into the individual situation to which my hon. Friend refers. In general there are statutory requirements for the uprating of pensions in respect of service post-1997, but occasionally, when schemes are wound up underfunded and fall under different regimes, different indexation rules can apply. I would be very happy to receive more details and to meet my hon. Friend.

Malcolm Wicks: Given the importance of tackling social security fraud, which depends in part on promoting a sense of responsibility and honesty across the whole of society, does the Secretary of State agree that that is undermined by the widespread tax evasion by rich individuals and companies? If honesty is good enough for the poor, surely it is good enough for the rich.

Iain Duncan Smith: Of course if one defines tax evasion as doing something utterly illegal, it is quite wrong and we should bear down hard on it. That is the reality for everybody-if they do something that is beyond the law, that is wrong and we should bear down on them no matter how wealthy they are. That should be a rule for everybody, not just for the poor.

Nick de Bois: The Secretary of State may be aware that in my constituency, we have enlisted the support of companies and the voluntary sector to host a jobs fair on 21 January, to create local jobs for local people. That could not have been done without the support of the jobcentre agencies. Will he encourage other jobcentre agencies, as a matter of policy, to support the idea?

Iain Duncan Smith: I congratulate my neighbour on his role in that idea, which reflects the fact that as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has made clear, Jobcentre Plus has worked really well in various constituencies to try to get work clubs going. In fact, the level of work club start-ups so far has been beyond what we expected at this point. Jobcentre Plus and my hon. Friend need to be congratulated, and I look forward to coming to see him in his constituency this Friday.

Alex Cunningham: The Demos report Counting the Cost, funded by Scope, shows that the number of disabled people who currently live in poverty is far higher than official estimates show, as their lower incomes and higher living costs are not taken into consideration. What action will the Secretary of State take to rectify that anomaly?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Government are doing two things. First, they are ensuring that more disabled people can get into employment. As I said earlier, around half of disabled people are in employment; many more want to work and cannot. The coalition Government have made clear their commitment to access to work as a way of helping disabled people into work, as well as to the work of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), through the Work programme and Work Choice. However, we also recognise the extra costs that disabled people face, and our reform of disability living allowance and the introduction of personal independence payments will help to ensure that we have a robust mechanism in place, which is not means-tested but can support disabled people. I am glad to hear that the Opposition will perhaps support some of our reforms of disability living allowance.

Duncan Hames: More than 100 disabled members of Chippenham's Gateway club have written to me about the mobility component of disability living allowance, which they use to fund their transport to voluntary-run activities, which make a huge difference to their quality of life. Given the Minister's earlier answer, how can we ensure that care homes begin to meet those transport needs so that such activities can continue, even after her reforms?

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I do not think I can be clearer than to say that it is a condition of the registration of care homes that, when practical, they promote the independence, participation and community involvement of their residents. That is an important part of their job, and it is important that we ensure that disabled people who live in care homes continue to enjoy an independent life. Of course, if they are looking to move into employment, they are also eligible to apply for funding from the access to work scheme.

Paul Flynn: Of the representations that the Government have received from pensioners' organisations on the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index, what proportion was in favour and what proportion was against?

Steve Webb: The consultation that we undertook on the RPI-CPI change was about occupational pensions, and the majority of responses were from occupational pension organisations. Unsurprisingly, as CPI is generally lower, members of the schemes were not so keen and those who have to pay for the schemes were rather keener.

William Bain: Is the Minister aware that, at the weekend, the disability charity Scope described her plans to remove the mobility component of disability living allowance as a callous decision, which would
	result in people being prisoners in their own homes,
	and that disability lawyers have expressed concerns about the compatibility of the changes with the European convention on human rights? When will the Minister join the growing national consensus that the plans are unfair and unacceptable, and withdraw them?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important to make it clear that our proposals apply to people who live in residential care homes, not those who live in residential accommodation. That was slightly unclear from the question. Obviously, any measure that the Government propose is subject to a full impact assessment, in which human rights and other legislation will be examined in detail. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already taken advice on the matter, and that the measures fully comply with human rights legislation.

Swine Flu

John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) ( Urgent Question): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question to ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's preparations for and response to the current flu outbreak.

Andrew Lansley: Every winter, flu causes illness and distress to many people. It causes serious illness in some cases and, unfortunately, some deaths. I know that each death is a tragedy that will cause distress to family and friends.
	The NHS is again well prepared to respond to the pressures that winter brings-it has responded excellently this year. I thank in particular general practitioners, who each year work tirelessly to look after the health of their patients-especially this winter when the weather, as well as flu and other viruses, has presented challenges.
	The rate of GP consultations for influenza-like illness is currently 98 per 100,000 people, down from 124 per 100,000. Those figures are lower than the numbers recorded during the pandemic in 2009-10 and below epidemic levels, which are defined as 200 per 100,000 people. The most recent data showed that 783 people were in critical care in England with influenza-like illness.
	Where necessary, local NHS organisations have increased their critical care capacity, in part by-regrettably-delaying routine operations that require critical care back-up. That is a normal local NHS operational process; critical care capacity is always able to be flexible according to local need. We have also increased the number of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation beds, for patients with the most severe disease, from five to 22. A seasonal flu vaccine is again available this year. Our surveillance data show that the vaccine is a good match to the strains of flu that are circulating.
	GPs in England order seasonal flu vaccine direct from the manufacturers, according to their needs. Vaccine supply is determined in the early part of the year, for autumn delivery. We recently became aware of reports of flu vaccine supply shortages in some areas in England. We are working with the NHS locally to ensure available supplies of surplus vaccine are moved to where they are needed. In addition, the H1N1 monovalent vaccine is now available to GPs for patients who are eligible for the seasonal flu vaccine.
	The Government continue to take expert advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Last year, the JCVI advised for the first time that, in addition to usual risk groups, healthy pregnant women should be vaccinated with seasonal flu vaccine. It did not recommend that children under the age of five outside the at-risk groups should be vaccinated. On 30 December, the JCVI assured me that this advice remains appropriate.
	The number of deaths in the UK this winter from flu, verified by the Health Protection Agency, currently is 50. The number of deaths from seasonal flu varies each year, with over 10,000 deaths from seasonal flu estimated in the winter of 2008-09.
	Antiviral medicines can also help clinical at-risk groups who have been exposed to flu-like illness. We notified clinicians that the use of antiviral medicines in these groups was justified and, at their discretion, with other patients. We have given access to the national antiviral stockpile to support that.
	We are making publicly available for the first time a range of winter performance information, published on the Winterwatch section of the Department's website. I wrote to all Members last week to inform them of the NHS response to flu, and updated them further in a written statement published this morning.

John Healey: I thank the Health Secretary for that statement, but the truth is that he has been slow to act at every stage of this outbreak, and that is putting great pressure on the NHS across the country. It is working flat-out in our local hospital in Rotherham. We have had to open extra beds, and since last Tuesday have cancelled all non-urgent surgery. Four of the 50 patients in the UK who have so far died linked to this flu have been in Rotherham, and two were constituents.
	The Health Secretary talks about seasonal flu, but we knew this would not be like normal winter flu because we knew swine flu would be dominant, so the central question for the Health Secretary is why he made less preparation for a flu outbreak that was expected to be more serious. Why did he axe the annual autumn advertising campaign to help boost take-up of the flu jab and help the public understand who is at risk and what treatment is available? We know it works, and this was a serious misjudgement.
	Why was the Government's first circular to midwives, urging them to help get pregnant women to take up the flu jab, not sent out until 16 December? Why has there been no move to offer vaccines through antenatal clinics, and why are the Government not publishing details of the numbers of pregnant women who are seriously ill or who have died, as they are with other groups that are most at risk?
	With proper planning and preparation, we should not have seen GPs and pharmacies running out of the vaccine in some areas last week, nor should we have seen parents confused about the treatment available for their young children. I hope last week's figures mean we may be over the worst, but, with 783 people in critical care and a long winter still ahead, what steps will the Health Secretary take if the numbers of ill people continue to rise? Can he now, today, give the House the reassurance he has failed so far to give the public, which is that he really has got a grip on this situation? Finally, when all the bodies he is relying on to sort out this situation will be abolished under his internal organisation, what assurance can he give the public that this will be any better handled in the future?

Andrew Lansley: I share the right hon. Gentleman's deep sadness at the deaths in Rotherham and join him in expressing clearly my condolences to the families of his and other Members' constituents who have died. Regrettably, there will, I fear, be further deaths from flu-that is in the nature of the winter flu season-but I have to explain to him that we are in the midst of a seasonal flu outbreak that has not reached epidemic levels. Neither is it a pandemic, which is clearly a different situation in which a novel virus, to which there is not acquired immunity, is in circulation.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. First, on having to cancel operations, I have made it clear that that is, unfortunately, a consequence: if the NHS's critical care capacity is under pressure, it cannot admit large numbers of patients for elective operations that might require critical care back-up. The seasonal winter flu outbreak has led to an increase in the number of patients with flu in critical care beds, although they still constitute only about one fifth of the total number of critical care beds, and I pay tribute to hospitals across the country that have increased their critical care capacity, particularly in intensive care, to deal with the situation.
	We are also providing assistance to the NHS. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to my important announcement last Tuesday that, because we made savings in the Department of Health's central budgets, on things such as management consultancy costs and the IT scheme, we have been able to issue this financial year-in other words, starting now-an additional £162 million to primary care trusts throughout England. They will be able to use that money directly with their local authorities to facilitate the discharge of patients. There are currently about 2,500 patients in hospital who could be discharged if the appropriate arrangements were in place. That will accelerate the relationship with social care that we are looking for.
	It is pretty rich for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party to say that there should not have been any shortages. The number of vaccines supplied to the United Kingdom was determined before the Government took office. It was determined under the previous Administration, in the early part of last year, not by this Administration. Furthermore, it was equally not just presumptuous but unhelpful for him, during the Christmas period, to talk inaccurately about whether children under the age of five should be vaccinated. He knows perfectly well that like his predecessors we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. With the chief medical officer, we asked the committee to look at the issue again, and it met on 30 December and reiterated its advice that young children should not be vaccinated. So for him to stimulate press reports suggesting that parents should have their children vaccinated, when the expert advice was not that that should be done, was deeply unhelpful.
	The right hon. Gentleman's final point was about the organisations. It is clear to me that, by abolishing the Health Protection Agency and bringing its responsibilities inside the Department of Health under the new Public Health England, we will have a more integrated and more effective system for responding to seasonal flu in future years.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If I am to have any realistic chance of accommodating the interest of most Members, short questions and answers alike will be essential.

Nicky Morgan: The Secretary of State is right that general practitioners are on the front line, and it is to them that patients will turn. Does he have any thoughts on the case of a constituent of mine who contacted me yesterday to say that he has been trying to get a vaccination, but has been unable to do so because he wants to have one after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when he can get away from work? He does not want to jeopardise his job and is finding it difficult to access the vaccination before then, but GPs would rather vaccinate in the morning.

Andrew Lansley: The arrangements that individual GP surgeries make for ordering and administering doses of the vaccine have been, since October, for them to make. From our point of view, as soon as we were aware that local supply would not necessarily match local demand in the places it should, we took the decision last week to make available the NHS stockpile-there are 12.7 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine-and I can tell my hon. Friend that 20,000 doses began to be distributed this morning. There is no reason why we cannot meet the requirement for vaccinations, whether through GPs' own doses and local arrangements, through issuing NHS prescriptions that can be fulfilled at local pharmacies or through surgeries ordering the H1N1 vaccine from us.

Gerald Kaufman: Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware-he should be because I have written to him about this-of serious concerns in my constituency about the shortage of flu vaccine, including for chronically sick people? Will he tell the House, in the most specific way, what action he is taking to ensure that sufficient flu vaccine is available in the city of Manchester and in Greater Manchester?

Andrew Lansley: May I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of vaccine supplied to the United Kingdom is determined by manufacturers on the basis of discussions with not only the Department, but others, and that the vaccines are ordered by individual GP surgeries? The total amount of vaccine was 14.8 million doses, which is comparable to the level in previous years. Although GP surgeries have shortages, because of the preparations made during the pandemic in 2009 and given that the principal strain of flu circulating is the H1N1 strain-it is not the only strain, but it is the most relevant to guard against for many in the at-risk groups under the age of 65-we made it clear that we would back up GPs who had any shortages with access to our stockpile of H1N1 vaccine. Orders have come in and they are being filled.

John Pugh: Governments do not control diseases yet, but in my constituency elective surgery has been cancelled and pharmacies have run out of vaccine. What is the serious long-term alternative to the over-provision of last year and the localised under-provision of this year?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think one can say that there was over-provision during the pandemic, because one could not have been at all clear about the nature of the progress of H1N1. However, what that meant is that we have the stockpile of vaccine available to back up the NHS this year. My hon. Friend makes a very good point, because there is clearly an issue to deal with regarding how this is properly managed. Before Labour Members start talking from a sedentary position, they might wish to re-examine the 2007 flu review. It was conducted by the Department of Health under the previous Administration and recommended that there should be central procurement of flu vaccine in England, but the previous Administration did nothing about it.

Kevin Barron: Can the Secretary of State tell us why the midwives association was not written to until 16 December?

Andrew Lansley: We made it very clear that everyone in the at-risk groups was going to be contacted through their GP surgery, and it is the responsibility of GPs to have done that.

Mark Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the information that he has provided so far, but I wonder whether he could reassure the parents of a 13-year-old boy. They came to see me on Saturday because their son is egg allergic and also suffers from asthma, and they are concerned about the availability of a flu vaccine this year.

Andrew Lansley: I will certainly write to my hon. Friend about this, but I am confident that one of the number of vaccines that are available will be suitable for his constituent.

Hugh Bayley: Last week, 30 beds at York hospital were occupied by people with suspected or confirmed cases of flu. That is costing the local NHS £7,500 a day-£50,000 a week-and that money could be spent on treating patients with unavoidable conditions. What lessons will the Secretary of State learn from the failure to promote the uptake of the flu vaccine this year to ensure that we do not encounter a similar problem next year?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a false premise, because the level of vaccine uptake this year among over-65s is 70% and among under-65s is 45.5%, which is comparable to previous years. He did not refer to this, but because we made savings we provided the NHS with considerable additional resources in the last three months of the year precisely to manage winter pressures and ensure that beds in hospitals are available.

David Tredinnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the increase in the critical case capacity and in the number of extra corporeal membrane oxygenation-ECMO-beds from five to 22, which has made a difference. Will he also pay tribute to others who help in these situations, such as the manufacturers of homeopathic medicines and homeopathic chemists? They provide preparations that may be suitable for people, such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who are unable to take flu vaccines and others who choose not to do so.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. His local hospital, the Glenfield in Leicester, leads on specialised ECMO bed services. In this country, we have increased the number of ECMO beds; we have more per head of population than any of the developed health economies, including the United States. As for treatments and vaccinations, I continue to rest upon the scientific and expert advice. Indeed, I hope that patients will consult their clinicians about their treatments.

Valerie Vaz: Will the Secretary of State say whether he took the decision to delay the advertising campaign and, if so, when?

Andrew Lansley: I announced just after Christmas the catch it, bin it, kill it campaign. I had not -[Interruption.] Let me explain to Opposition Members. In 2009, the campaign took place in November. Why? It was because the spread of flu took place in late October, early November. Therefore, it occurred at the point at which there was a substantial spread of the influenza in the community. That is precisely what we did this year.

Henry Smith: As an asthma sufferer, I am pleased to report that just this morning I had the benefit of the flu jab and it was professionally and painlessly administered. However, constituents have come to me concerned about, in one case, a child who has had the respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV and, in another case, an adult who has had pneumonia, who have been denied the flu vaccine. Will he examine how the guidance to GP practices can be amended to include such groups?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course write to my hon. Friend about the nature of the advice provided by the joint committee, but we follow and have followed at each stage the advice given to us by that independent expert committee, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. I will certainly write to him to explain how it has determined the at-risk groups for these purposes.

John Spellar: Earlier, the Secretary of State made the astonishing admission that he has done nothing since the Labour Government left office. He rightly drew attention to the work being done for at-risk groups. However, emergency planning requires the sustaining of the emergency services. Why is he not giving priority to those who work for the emergency services-the police, the fire and ambulance services?

Andrew Lansley: I have two points for the right hon. Gentleman. First, all NHS staff, including ambulance staff, are eligible for the vaccine. Regrettably, when I last, under 20% had availed themselves of that opportunity. I wish that it were higher.

Liz Kendall: Wish? Does the Secretary of State think wishing is enough?

Andrew Lansley: They are all offered it, so they can all be provided with it. I am not in a position to require people to take a vaccine. We are not providing mandatory vaccination in this country yet, and I do not suppose that we shall.
	Secondly, I was not admitting that I had done nothing-on the contrary. What the right hon. Gentleman perhaps does not understand is that one cannot simply order additional large-scale supplies of a vaccine. A long process of manufacture is required, as it is an egg-based culture system. The amount is ordered in the spring for autumn delivery, so the amount was determined in the spring. When I entered office in May, there was not any reason particularly to think that we would need more than in other flu seasons, and we knew that we had the back-up of the H1N1 vaccine if we needed it. In early August, I made it clear that I intended to review further the system of procurement, distribution of flu vaccine and its supply. That review is ongoing and will be published shortly.

Jeremy Lefroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason that acute beds are under such pressure at this time of swine flu is that we do not have sufficient step-down or community beds into which people can transfer from acute beds?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Primary care trusts and local authorities working together should now be able to have confidence that the resources are available in this financial year-and £648 million will be available in the next financial year, and more in years beyond-to improve the relationship between health and social care not only through things such as step-down beds, but through operating, for example, hospital at home services, community equipment services and home adaptations to ensure that only those people who need to be in hospital are in hospital.

Gisela Stuart: There have been several reports about children having to travel extremely long distances to access critical care in children's hospitals. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that there is sufficient capacity for paediatric intensive care and high dependency care?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am. The hon. Lady will know that there have always been occasions when paediatric intensive care capacity in a particular hospital is full and when it is necessary for children to be taken a distance. On Christmas eve, I was at the intensive care unit at Alder Hey and I want to pay tribute to the tremendous work done by staff there. They acknowledge that this was not just about H1N1. One reason the committee did not recommend vaccinating all children under the age of five was that children, particularly very young children, were in intensive care because of a combination of H1N1 and/or bronchiolitis and RSV. A range of conditions was impacting at that moment on very young children.

Luciana Berger: Several chemists and GPs' surgeries in Merseyside have run out of the flu vaccine, leaving at-risk patients unable to obtain the jab. The Health Protection Agency has highlighted Liverpool as having significantly higher rates of swine flu than the English average. Will Liverpool therefore receive a higher proportion of the £162 million that the Secretary of State has made available to primary care trusts to help those affected?

Andrew Lansley: The £162 million will be allocated to primary care trusts based on the social care allocation formula, which will be the same for next year. Any GP surgery, or for that matter the primary care trust in Merseyside, is free to come to us to order supplies from the national stockpile of the H1N1 vaccine to ensure that those who require vaccination can receive it.

Kevin Brennan: In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the Secretary of State was clearly giving an after-the-fact justification for his failure to act on the winter awareness campaign earlier in the year. He is fond of telling anyone who ventures to criticise him that they are completely wrong. Will he admit that on this occasion, as far as the awareness campaign is concerned, he was the one who was completely wrong?

Andrew Lansley: No, absolutely not. I was simply pointing out to Opposition Members that the principle that applied in 2009, which was that the point at which flu was circulating in the community was the point at which the catch it, bin it, kill it campaign was initiated, was precisely the same principle that I applied this year.
	May I say in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) that the supplies of vaccine provided to primary care trusts or GPs' surgeries from the national stockpile of swine flu vaccine will be provided free?

Christopher Leslie: To be absolutely clear on that answer, does the Secretary of State have any regrets whatsoever about not proceeding with the flu publicity campaign?

Andrew Lansley: No. I have made it perfectly clear that the principle we applied is exactly the same and was based on the medical advice given to me, which was to pursue an awareness campaign on respiratory and hand hygiene at the point at which flu was circulating in the community. That is what I was asked and that is the decision I took.

Tom Greatrex: Will the Secretary of State comment on the worrying media reports emanating from Scotland that at a time when there were shortages of vaccine the Department of Health was scrabbling around trying to get supplies from other countries when there was a surplus in Scotland, but it never asked the Scottish Government? Is that the case, or is it nationalist mischief making from Edinburgh?

Andrew Lansley: All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is the simple truth. In the early part of last week, we asked manufacturers whether they had additional supplies. I believe that some additional seasonal flu vaccine that is licensed for use in this country probably will be made available. In any case, we have the H1N1 vaccine to support the immunisation, where required. Early last week, we did ask Scotland. The amounts that would have been available in the short run were not significant at all, so it was better for them to be retained in Scotland because there might be a continuing need for the vaccine there, rather than here.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State explain when in the course of the year the vaccine would normally be ordered?

Andrew Lansley: It would normally be ordered between March and May.

Paul Flynn: H1N1 deaths are especially tragic because they involve people with expectations of a long life. Last year, 65,000 deaths were anticipated but fewer than 500 died with swine flu and 150 died of swine flu. If the priorities of the health service are not to be distorted, should not we approach this problem with a sense of both caution and proportion?

Andrew Lansley: I share the hon. Gentleman's deep regret. H1N1, unlike many previous flu strains, does not particularly impact on the elderly; it impacts on younger people and on younger adults in particular. That is the principal reason why we are seeing a relatively larger number of people occupying critical care beds. The NHS response has been to accelerate the provision of critical care capacity and of ECMO beds in particular.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The Secretary of State will be aware that tragically there have been 14 flu-related deaths in Northern Ireland during this winter. Given that that figure is proportionately higher than in other parts of the United Kingdom, what discussions has he had or does he intend to have with his counterpart in Northern Ireland to assess why the proportion is so much higher and whether there is a black spot with regard to that disease?

Andrew Lansley: The figure of 50 deaths to which I have referred is the total number of deaths verified by the Health Protection Agency. There have been more deaths than that, but they have not been verified to have been caused by flu. I cannot comment on the relationship between the number that I quoted for the United Kingdom as a whole and that for Northern Ireland, because we are not dealing with comparable figures. My colleagues in the devolved Administrations and I will continue to keep in touch. It is important for us not to be simplistic about this. There are differences in vaccine take-up between Administrations-they are not major, but they exist. There are differences in the prevalence of swine flu, and the prevalence of flu in Northern Ireland is very high compared with England-it is even a great deal higher than that in Scotland. Happily, the number of deaths is only ever a very small proportion of the people who contract flu. To that extent, it is difficult to draw from the number of deaths conclusions about the nature of the response to flu overall, not least because the prevalence is overwhelmingly among people who are not in the at-risk groups, who, I hope, were vaccinated.

Denis MacShane: Mr Speaker, I am not sure whether you have noticed that since the Secretary of State started making his excuses for this problem, Government Front Benchers and Back Benchers have looked more and more unwell. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has had the flu jab and that he has made sure that his Front-Bench team have had it?

Andrew Lansley: I take this issue seriously, even if the right hon. Gentleman does not. As it happens, I fall into one of the at-risk groups, because I had a stroke in 1992, so I have had the flu jab. I would not ask members of my ministerial team who are not in the at-risk groups to have the vaccination, because it is not recommended.

Toby Perkins: The biggest tragedy is that the Secretary of State has learned no lessons whatsoever from what has happened. As a result, it is likely that the same mistakes will be made in the future. His answers about the advertising campaign are completely unconvincing. Will he explain why he cancelled the advertising campaign, which GPs were demanding at the time, to increase the take-up of vaccinations?

Andrew Lansley: I cancelled no campaign; I proceeded only with the awareness campaign on respiratory and hand hygiene. An advertising campaign aimed at the general population would not have been effective, and I was advised that there was no evidence that it would be effective. We knew who the at-risk groups were, and it was possible to reach them directly rather than engaging in wider advertising.

Owen Smith: Will the Secretary of State tell us what role primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are playing in dealing with the crisis? Will he explain what dismantling the SHAs and PCTs will do in terms of central planning for future crises?

Andrew Lansley: The role of SHAs and PCTs is, as in previous years, to manage the NHS response to winter pressures. In future, the commissioning consortiums together with the NHS Commissioning Board, will fulfil similar responsibilities. In future years, there will be a stronger ability to integrate the response of the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency, working together as one new organisation, Public Health England, which will have a stronger public health infrastructure.

Contaminated Blood

Andrew Lansley: With permission, I would like to make a statement on hepatitis C and HIV-infected blood.
	What happened during the 1970s and 1980s, when thousands of patients contracted hepatitis C and HIV from NHS blood and blood products, is one of the great tragedies of modern health care. It is desperately sad to recall that during this period the best efforts of the NHS to restore people to health actually consigned very many to a life of illness and hardship. As the current Health Secretary, and on behalf of Governments extending back to the 1970s, may I begin by saying how sorry I am that this happened and by expressing my deep regret for the pain and misery that many have suffered as a result?
	It is now almost two decades since the full extent of the infection was established and two years since the independent inquiry led by Lord Archer of Sandwell reported. The majority of Lord Archer's recommendations are in place, as are programmes of ex gratia payments, which are administered by the Macfarlane Trust and the Eileen Trust for the HIV-infected and by the Skipton Fund for those with hepatitis C. However, significant anomalies remain and I pay tribute to Lord Archer, to other noble Lords and to hon. Members in this place from all parties for highlighting them.
	In October, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), announced a review into the current support arrangements -to look at reducing the differences between the hepatitis C and HIV financial support schemes and to explore other issues raised by Members during the recent Back-Bench debate, including prescription charges and wider support for those affected. We also asked clinical experts to advise on the impact of hepatitis C infection on a person's health and quality of life and to consider whether an increase in financial support was needed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met representative groups to understand the impact that these infections were having on people's lives and has also met many Members of both Houses who have been strong advocates on behalf of those affected.
	We have now considered the findings of the clinical expert group and we accept that the needs of those with advanced liver disease from hepatitis C merit higher levels of support. At present, the amount of money paid to this group depends on the seriousness of the infection. There are two stages at which the Skipton Fund will make a payment, the first of which is when the person develops chronic hepatitis C infection. At this point, a person is eligible for a stage 1 relief payment-currently a lump sum of £20,000. Some may reach a second stage of developing an advanced liver disease such as cirrhosis or cancer, or of requiring a liver transplant; they then become eligible for a stage 2 payment, which is currently another lump sum of £25,000. Under new arrangements that we will introduce, this second stage payment will increase from £25,000 to £50,000. This will apply retrospectively, so that if a person has already received an initial stage 2 payment of £25,000, they will now get another £25,000 lump sum, bringing the total to £50,000.
	In addition, we will also introduce a new, annual payment of £12,800 for those with hepatitis C who reach this second stage. This is the same amount as those who were infected with HIV receive. Those infected with both HIV and hepatitis C from contaminated blood will now receive two annual payments of £12,800 if they meet the stage 2 criteria-one payment for each infection-along with the respective lump sums. All annual payments that are made, both to those so infected with HIV and to those with hepatitis C, will now be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index to keep pace with living costs.
	We know that some of those infected with HIV or hepatitis C from NHS blood and blood products face particular hardship and poverty. Those infected with HIV can already apply for additional discretionary payments from the Eileen Trust and the Macfarlane Trust, but no equivalent arrangements are in place for those infected with hepatitis C, so we will now establish a new charitable trust to make similar payments to those with hepatitis C who are in serious financial need. These payments will be available for those at all stages of their illness, based on individual circumstances. Discretionary payments will also be available to support the dependants of those infected with hepatitis C, including the dependants of those who have since died. Again, this will echo the arrangements in place for those infected with HIV and will enable us to give more to those in the greatest need.
	We must also ensure that those infected through NHS blood and blood products get the right medical and psychological support. I can therefore announce two further measures. First, those infected with hepatitis C or HIV will no longer pay for their prescriptions. They will now receive the cost of an annual prescription prepayment certificate if they are currently charged for prescriptions. Secondly, the representative groups raised the issue of counselling support for those infected through blood and blood products. We fully recognise the emotional distress that they have experienced. As a result, we will provide £300,000 over the next three years to allow for around 6,000 hours of counselling to help those groups.
	While we focus on those still living with infections, we must also recognise the bereaved families of those who have died. At present, no payment can be made to those infected with hepatitis C who passed away before the Skipton Fund was established. That is a source of understandable distress to those who survive them, and that is something that we now want to put right. I can therefore announce that, until the end of March 2011, there will be a window of opportunity in which a posthumous claim of up to £70,000 can be made on behalf of those infected with hepatitis C who died before 29 August 2003. A single payment of £20,000 will be payable if the individual had reached the first stage of chronic infection. Another single payment of £50,000 will be made if their condition had deteriorated to the second stage, in which they suffered serious liver disease or required a liver transplant. We will work with the Skipton Fund and various patient groups to publicise this new payment to those who may benefit. Those new payments, which will go to the individual's estate, should help more families to get the support that they deserve.
	Taken together, these announcements represent a significant rise in the support available to those affected by this tragedy. Putting an exact figure on the package is difficult, as there is some uncertainty about how many people will be eligible, and how their illnesses may progress. However, we believe that the new arrangements could provide £100 million to £130 million-worth of additional support over the course of this Parliament. All payments will be disregarded for calculating income tax and eligibility for other state benefits, including social care. Although the changes apply only to those infected in England, I will be speaking to the devolved Administrations to see whether we can extend the measures across the United Kingdom.
	Today's announcements cannot remove the pain and distress that individuals and families have suffered over the years, but I hope that the measures can at least bring some comfort, some consolation, and perhaps even some closure to those affected. I commend the statement to the House.

Diane Abbott: The Opposition welcome the review and today's statement, and we note that Labour Health Ministers had agreed the review in principle before they left office. We are glad that the statement was made on the very first day back after the Christmas break, because we are aware that the statement was promised before Christmas. We appreciate it being made as soon as it could be made.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the House owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to the patient groups that have campaigned for more than 25 years on the issue? They include the Haemophilia Society, the Hepatitis C Trust, the Taintedblood group, the Manor House Group, and individuals such as Haydn Lewis, who unfortunately passed away before he could see this resolution. Without the campaigning of those groups and individuals over two decades, the issue would have been one of private misery and private suffering. It is because they campaigned and kept the issue before the public and before the eyes of politicians that we are able to move decisively towards a proper resolution today.
	Many of the measures in the statement will be welcomed, particularly the help with prescription charges and the £300,000 for counselling-I have seen with my own eyes the awful mental effect of this tragedy on people-as well as the payments for dependants, the provision for posthumous claims, and above all, the move towards parity in the cases of HIV and hepatitis C. All that will be welcomed, but there will still be campaigners who will regret that we have not been able to achieve parity with the compensation that was offered and handed out in the Republic of Ireland. It would be silly to pretend that there will not be many people still saying today, Why could we not achieve what was done in the Republic of Ireland?.
	Finally, when we remember that more than 4,500 completely innocent and trusting patients contracted HIV, hepatitis C or both as a consequence of tainted blood, and that more than 1,900 of those people have died, leaving thousands of dependants behind, should we not, as a House, resolve that it should never again take 25 years for perfectly innocent victims of errors and mistakes to have proper justice and recompense?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I entirely endorse her opening and closing remarks paying tribute to all the patient groups. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health has met many of those groups and individuals, and I know that she would heartily endorse what the hon. Lady said about how they have brought these issues time and again to the forefront of attention in the House and the other place. I do not want to underestimate the many in the House and the other place who responded to that and did so very well by bringing these cases forward. I hope that they will see in today's statement a proper response.
	We do not know whether there will ever be a similar case. I hope we can avoid it-it would be much better to avoid it-but if we were ever in a situation where such a consequence flowed from the NHS seeking to do its best to treat patients but such harm nevertheless occurred, I hope we would recognise that, be able to identify it and not allow decades to pass before proper recognition took place.
	That brings me to the substantive point that the hon. Lady made, which is the relationship between what we are doing and the compensation provided in the Republic of Ireland. As we explained in October, we do not regard these as comparable cases. In the Republic of Ireland, mistakes were made by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service which led to a recognition of liability, leading to a determination of compensation. In this country we are not providing compensation. We are recognising the harm that occurred, notwithstanding the fact that the NHS at the time sought to provide the treatment that it thought was in the best interests of patients.
	That harm occurred. As an ex gratia payment and in recognition of the harm that occurred and the distress that followed, we have sought to ensure that there is proper support, financial and otherwise, for the victims and their families. I hope that by getting rid of the anomalies and recognising-in particular, through the work of the clinical expert group-the impact on those with hepatitis C, we are giving the support that those who were damaged should expect.

Jonathan Evans: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, I should point out that Lord Archer recommended that there should be compensation along the Irish lines. That is a little of the context of what has taken place.
	I take the opportunity of congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) on all the work that she has done on the matter, which I know has been welcomed across the House.
	May I ask my right hon. Friend about the position in Wales? I was a little taken aback by the fact that he said that he intends to speak to fellow Ministers in Wales. I have a statement from the Welsh Minister indicating that as far as she is concerned, these issues come next to be considered by her in 2014, which was the previous agreement with the Department of Health. Many of my constituents will want to know what discussions have so far taken place and whether the arrangements will be replicated in the Principality.

Andrew Lansley: The Under-Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend said. I am grateful for it, too.
	I am speaking on behalf of England in this respect. As the Department of Health, we administer the payments system. We had to reach to decisions and we have done so. We always intended to do so as rapidly as we could for England, but as I explained in my statement, these decisions have yet to be made by the devolved Administrations. It is reasonable for them to see the review report that I am publishing today, not least the clinical expert review that goes with it, in order for them to make their own decisions. Those are decisions that they must make, but if they wished us to continue to administer the system on the same basis across the United Kingdom, we would be happy to do so.

Diana Johnson: In the debate on the subject in the autumn, the Under-Secretary of State agreed to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about the changes to benefits and how those would affect people who had received contaminated blood products. Can the Secretary of State give any guarantee about passporting people affected by the changes in benefits so that they do not lose out and have to go through a further set of medicals?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for that. This is not a response to precisely the question that the hon. Lady asks, but Lord Archer made a point about whether payments should be made through the Department for Work and Pensions. We do not see that any tangible benefit would flow from that.

Chris Bryant: That was not my hon. Friend's question.

Andrew Lansley: No, I acknowledged that. I will of course respond to the hon. Lady, but I think it better for us to administer all the payments through the system that I have set out. As I say, they will be disregarded for the purposes of calculation of benefits, so to that extent they will not impact adversely on current benefits.

Jason McCartney: Having spoken in the debate in October and having asked a question in Prime Minister's questions in November, I very much welcome a number in elements of the Secretary of State's statement, particularly those on free prescriptions and counselling help. Will he, however, promise to meet the Taintedblood campaigners and perhaps even to look at the overall level of compensation?

Andrew Lansley: May I say two things to my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has met those groups and will continue to meet them, because we want to ensure not least that those who are now eligible for enhanced payments and so on make proper applications. We have looked very carefully with the clinical expert group at the support that we ought to give. It is not compensation as such; it is an ex gratia form of support. We have made judgments, and if we were to go further, there would be significant additional costs. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I have made it clear to the House in the past that to provide payments on the scale of the Republic of Ireland might involve up to, or perhaps even in excess of, £3.5 billion a year, so I am not in a position to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) that I expect to go beyond the support that I have set out today.

Andy Slaughter: It is to be regretted that the review's terms of reference were so narrow, as it did not consider overall levels of compensation or HIV. If the Secretary of State believes that the Republic of Ireland case is simply too expensive, will he please say so and not rely, as the Department has, on either the idea that the Taintedblood campaigners and others are asking him to look at that and tying us to the Irish system, or the idea that they are asking us effectively to look at those levels of compensation because negligence was involved? That was not the case in Ireland. Is not the result likely to be more litigation? The levels of remuneration are still far too low.

Andrew Lansley: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, in response to previous questions I made it very clear that the question was not simply about the amount of money. The situation in the Republic of Ireland is unique in respect of its determination of liability because of mistakes made by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service. To that extent, we are making ex gratia payments. The nature of our payments stands comparison to other countries, particularly now, in respect of hepatitis C and my announcements this afternoon.

Jennifer Willott: I really welcome today's statement and, in particular, the apology, which will go a long way to ease some of the pain that some of the victims have suffered. Proper support for those infected with hepatitis C is also long overdue. Gareth Lewis, who was a leading Taintedblood campaigner-I believe he met the Under Secretary-tragically died just before Christmas, only a few months after his brother, Haydn, whom the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned. That highlights the urgency of my question. Governments are not known for moving quickly, particularly when it involves handing out money, so will the Secretary of State reassure us that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that the payments announced today are made as soon as is humanly possible?

Andrew Lansley: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has on many occasions spoken up on behalf of her constituents and others who were affected by the tainted blood and blood products? The answer to her question is yes-absolutely we will. When we came into office, we were determined to implement the review. As she said, we sought to complete the review before Christmas-technically speaking, we did, but we were not in a position to announce it before Christmas. We are doing this at the first available moment, and we will do everything that we possibly can to ensure that potential beneficiaries are notified and reached as quickly as possible so that the payments are in place as soon as possible.

Chris Bryant: It would be one of the greatest catastrophes if what happened were able to happen again. That is why it is so vital that the Government constantly keep under review the policy on donating blood. As the Secretary of State will know, men who have had sex with men are one of the categories of people who are not able to give blood at the moment, and that seems intrinsically unfair and prejudiced. I urge the Secretary of State to look only at the scientific evidence in the ongoing review; that, and not any other political consideration, is the basis on which the decision should be made.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I entirely agree.

Andrea Leadsom: I have to say that I am a bit disappointed; I am not sure whether today's announcement will give closure to many people. A constituent of mine told me about a very good friend of his who died in Spain over Christmas. Sadly, his family could not afford to bring the body home, so he had to be cremated in Spain. Under the circumstances, it is very important that the ex gratia payments, available through the new charity to be set up, take into account the tragic and particular problems of individual sufferers.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, indeed. I know that they will; that is one of the reasons why, in addition to the lump sum payments and annual payments that I have announced, we wanted to ensure that there was scope for discretionary payments based on individuals' needs.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I take the Secretary of State back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans)? It is rather surprising that there has not hitherto been any discussion with the devolved Administrations. If such payments are to be made in Scotland and Wales, is it anticipated that they will be made out of existing budgets? How will the matter be handled?

Andrew Lansley: What I have announced today will, of course, be funded from the Department of Health's budget in England and the matter would be a responsibility for the devolved Administrations in relation to their budgets -from within the budgets set through the spending review.

David Tredinnick: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend. I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health on all the work that she has done. The statement deals with what Lord Archer called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the national health service. It has to be said that the last Labour Government could have dealt with this, but they did not.
	Following the comprehensive package that he has announced, will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will take active steps to contact the families of the bereaved and that no stone will be left unturned in making sure that all those who should have payments receive them?

Andrew Lansley: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We will take all the steps that we possibly can, not least on behalf of the bereaved families of those who died before 29 August 2003. That anomaly, among others, ought to have been rectified long ago.

Owen Smith: I, too, welcome the statement-in particular the serious and commendable way in which the Under-Secretary of State has dealt with this important issue. However, the people who really need to be congratulated today are the campaigners such as the family of my constituent Leigh Sugar.
	I take the Secretary of State back to his comment that the measure will apply to England only. Will he explain the rationale for that? The previous schemes applied to England and Wales, although they predated devolution. Is he saying that no additional funds will be available for Welsh patients, under the Barnett consequentials, to provide similar funding in Wales?

Andrew Lansley: I share the view of the hon. Gentleman. Today the people who should feel that we are expressing our support are those who have been harmed and their families. Those are the people whom we are really supporting today. I hope that they will feel that although not everything that they have hoped for is being provided, we are at least making very substantial progress and doing a great deal to show recognition of the harm that occurred to them.
	At this Dispatch Box, I speak on health matters for England; I do not speak for Wales and I am not in a position to say what the decisions of the devolved Administrations are. I have set out what we are going to do in England. We are funding the measure from within allocated budgets, so no Barnett consequentials flow from it. These matters will be determined within each of the other Administrations in respect of whether they wish to share in the arrangements that I have described.

Adrian Sanders: There cannot be a Member of this House who does not have at least one constituent who is affected or who knows someone who is affected by this. I am sure that every hon. Member would like to congratulate the Government on the statement. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the bureaucracy needed to process matters forward has been looked at, so that it is kept to a minimum?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, we have done that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: hon. Members will have met constituents or the families of constituents who have been harmed, or the families of those who died. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to bring the terms of today's statement to their attention, so that people can access the additional support at the earliest possible opportunity. We will seek to do what my hon. Friend mentions. What I am describing builds as far as possible on existing mechanisms and, with the exception of the new discretionary trust, will not create any additional bureaucracy.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I am well aware of the strong interest of the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) in this subject and his track record on the issue in the House. The reason I have not called him and was not intending to call him is that, as far as I am aware, he was not here for the start of the statement. If I am wrong, I am happy to concede I am wrong. However, if I am right, that is the way it has to be for today. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian and I am sure he will find other ways to make his point when he wants to make it.

Phillip Lee: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement. In October's debate, I drew attention to the figure quoted of £3.5 billion that the Irish compensation scheme would cost and was concerned about its accuracy. The information was placed in the Library and, to justify it, it was indicated that there had been informal discussions. I have since found out that that was an unminuted telephone call. When I pointed that out, I was assured there would be further conversations with Republic of Ireland officials. Will he confirm that those took place and, if details are available, can they be placed in the Library?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know from the response that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to October's Back-Bench debate that we intended to place a note in the Library. We have done so. She has had further occasions to discuss these arrangements with colleagues in the House. The discussions between my officials and officials in the Republic of Ireland have confirmed that a figure of about £750,000 is not inappropriate as an estimate of the level of compensation per individual paid in the Republic of Ireland. That would support the view that we took in the House that the cost of providing compensation, if one were to do so, on the scale required in the Republic of Ireland would be in excess of £3 billion. As I said to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), it is not on the basis of cost alone that we have reached that view; it is on the basis that the circumstances in the Republic of Ireland are unique and do not apply in this country. Therefore, we have assessed the case for support on the basis of the circumstances here and on an ex gratia basis, not on the basis of liability and consequent compensation.

Stephen Barclay: I also thank the Minister for the welcome measures announced in the statement and for the progress that has been made after so long. May I return to the average figure of £750,000, because there is a concern that that figure could be confusing the average and the mean? If we take a figure between 500 and a million and say that it is the average, it does not provide an average figure. Such an approach is akin to saying that the price of a car ranges from £10,000 to £1 million and therefore the average price of a car is £500,000. In relation to the discussions that the Minister has had with officials in Ireland, will he confirm that the total paid in Ireland-the total payment in terms of Irish settlements on this matter-is less than £1 billion?

Andrew Lansley: As I have said in response to previous questions, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friends have done in support of their constituents and others. It is not simply a question of trying to calculate what the level of compensation is in Ireland; that is not the issue. We are not making a comparison with Ireland; we are making a judgment. In this case, we have especially done so in relation to hepatitis C, on the basis of the report of the clinical expert group, to try to assess the level of harm and the consequences that have flowed from the transfusions that took place, albeit that in this country the NHS acted on the basis of its best efforts to provide the best possible care for patients. The Republic of Ireland is a unique, and quite distinct, case in that because of mistakes made, a finding of liability was arrived at which leads to compensation. In our case, we are not in that position. We are in the position of recognising the harm and distress that has occurred and, through an ex gratia scheme, providing support to those who have been harmed and their families.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Secretary of State for bringing the Government's deliberations on the issue to this conclusion. Will he reassure the House that those experiencing the symptoms of advanced liver disease who received contaminated blood will not in all cases be required to have a liver biopsy in order to demonstrate and establish their eligibility for these payments?

Andrew Lansley: No, they will not. From our point of view, eligibility will simply be based on a diagnosis of their condition.

David Mowat: I, too, welcome the statement, particularly the attempt to get better parity between HIV and hepatitis C. However, I remain slightly concerned about the definition of stage 2. What proportion of hepatitis C complainants does the Minister expect to progress to stage 2? He must have estimated that number in order to put a financial amount on the settlement.

Andrew Lansley: I regret that I cannot give such an estimate to my hon. Friend. The estimate that I have given is a range that extends from £100 million to £130 million during the life of this Parliament. If one were to go beyond that period, the parameters of the range would widen, not least because we do not, and cannot, know to what extent this infection is likely to progress to the second stage of these diseases.

Charlotte Leslie: I very much welcome much of what has been said in the statement, particularly the fact that the decision has been made to force closure on an issue that has been going on for so long. One of the things that has upset so many of the sufferers is not only that such a scandal happened but the subsequent failings, as they would see it, not of Government but of the Department of Health in being clear and transparent during those years in providing information on exactly what happened. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will have to provide information to help those people who are still affected when they ask questions, perhaps through freedom of information requests, about what occurred in the past?

Andrew Lansley: May I once more express my thanks to my hon. Friend for having been a forceful advocate in these matters? The answer to her question is yes, not least because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has been very open and willing to talk to everybody concerned, and she will continue to be so, because we are determined to give people confidence that we have not only exercised what we believe to be a responsible and reasonable judgment in these matters but are doing so in an open and transparent fashion.

Points of Order

John Mann: In a statement given to this House in December, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), circulated a list of courts to be closed which stated that the county court services in Worksop would transfer to Worksop magistrates court. To clarify that that was the case, I asked him a question from these Benches, and he confirmed to the House that it was so. It has subsequently come to light not only that that information provided orally to the House and in writing was inaccurate, but that exactly the opposite is happening, and that the county court services are to transfer away from Worksop court. I am sure that this was not an attempt to mislead the House but a bureaucratic cock-up of some kind by civil servants. Will you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how the Minister can best rectify this situation whereby his civil servants have clearly not carried out his instructions as outlined to the House?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his giving me notice of it. From that notice-the letter that he sent to me before Christmas-I am well aware of his concern on this matter, which he has reiterated forcefully this afternoon. There is a mechanism for the correction of ministerial replies where necessary. That observation will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and, I trust, in the relevant Department. The hon. Gentleman can seek advice from the Table Office on how to pursue this matter, and I rather imagine that he will. I note that Ministry of Justice Ministers are answering oral questions tomorrow. I hope that that response is helpful.

Helen Goodman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the serious riots in Ford open prison during the parliamentary recess. The Government have set up an inquiry to consider the causes and what lessons can be learned. I would be grateful if you could ensure through your good offices that when the inquiry comes to a conclusion, Ministers come to the House to make an oral statement on the findings, and do not simply rely on a press notice or leaks to the newspapers.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The means of communication of Government conclusions is a matter for the Government-that is to say, it is not for me to specify that there be an oral rather than a written statement. Her plea will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench. More widely on this important issue, I reiterate a point that I made in response to the previous point of order, namely that Justice questions will be answered tomorrow. I doubt that it will be beyond the wit and dexterity of hon. Members to raise this matter if they so wish.

Geoffrey Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I in no way seek to challenge your ruling, but wish to explain to you and the House that I was delayed by seeking to speak to a constituent who is a double infectee of hepatitis C and AIDS, who has suffered greatly and who has been very active in the campaign, to discuss the very issues that were the subject of the statement by the Secretary of State for Health. I will be in touch with the Secretary of State in writing to raise the points that I would like to have raised.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not a point of order, but it might be described as a point of courtesy, and the House is grateful for it.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a good deal of disquiet over the proceedings against six demonstrators. The case has been dropped because the police were very reluctant to give information about an undercover agent. It is not unknown, of course, for police officers to act as undercover agents, and in many cases it is perfectly justified, such as in terrorism cases that safeguard our country. It appears that the police constable in this case was not just an undercover agent; he has more or less admitted that he was acting as an agent provocateur-there is no other way to describe it. Is there any way in which the Home Secretary can be asked to make a statement on this case, which as I said is creating a good deal of disquiet?

Mr Speaker: It is up to a Minister in the Home Office or another relevant Department to decide whether to make a statement. On the face of it, this seems to be good material for a business question. The hon. Gentleman might want to raise the matter at the appropriate slot on Thursday. That is the best that I can offer him at the moment.

Stewart Hosie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Business Secretary asked to make a statement on Royal Mail's deployment of what it calls the Way Forward system of working? Its roll-out in my constituency has been shambolic for nearly two months, with many constituents receiving mail late or not at all. What powers do you have to compel the Secretary of State to take questions on that matter before the system is deployed elsewhere in the country?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think he well knows that I have no such powers, but it is decent of him to think that I might be granted them. I say to him that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleagues will, if memory serves me, answer oral questions on Thursday. I look forward with interest and enthusiasm to seeing him in his place on that occasion.

Andy Slaughter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 December, the day before the House rose, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement on the route of the high-speed rail network and said that the main interchange would be at the Old Oak Common depot in my constituency. He visited that depot before coming to the House. Although that is the largest ever civil engineering project in the area, he did not inform me of that visit. He did, however, inform the press, to which he made statements; the local Conservative party, which then publicised the visit; and the local authority. Given that that appears to have breached not only the custom of informing Members but those of not making statements before coming to the House and of not using announcements to party advantage, can you help me understand how it can be prevented from happening in future?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, and I appreciate the importance of the issue to his constituency and a great many others. Major announcements should be made first in the House. The exact mechanics by which Ministers inform all the interested parties are not necessarily a matter for the rules of the House, but I suggest that he draw the matter to the attention of the Procedure Committee, which is considering ministerial statements.
	More widely, if I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, I simply reiterate what I think most colleagues understand and try to apply, namely that there is a convention that a Member, including a Minister, visiting the constituency of another Member notifies the Member whose constituency is being visited in advance, and preferably in a timely way so that that Member has proper notice of it. I hope that that is helpful.

Armed Forces Bill

Second  Reading

Liam Fox: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I take this opportunity to wish Members on both sides of the House a very happy new year.
	Before we start today's debate, the House will want to pay tribute to Corporal Steven Dunn from 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment Battlegroup; Warrant Officer Charles Wood from 23 Pioneer Regiment Royal Logistic Corps; and, from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland, Private Joseva Vatubua, who all died following actions in Afghanistan. My thoughts and prayers, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with their families and friends at this very distressing time for them.
	The Ministry of Defence usually brings forward an armed forces Bill once every five years, so this is a relatively rare parliamentary occasion for the Department. Many of us who have been involved with defence for some time remember the last Armed Forces Bill, now the Armed Forces Act 2006, which established a single system of service law for the first time. Hon. Members will remember that it was a very large Bill. I remember it well, as Second Reading was three days after my appointment as shadow Defence Secretary and I spent three frantic days coming to terms with its complexity. Feedback from the services following its implementation has confirmed that it was a good Bill and is proving a good Act in practice. I pay tribute to those on both sides of the House who worked on the Bill through its long and difficult process and helped to introduce the changes that have made it so successful.
	Perhaps not surprisingly, this Bill is considerably smaller. In its own way, however, it too is an important piece of legislation. It continues a series of armed forces Bills that stretch back to the Bill of Rights of 1689, which enacted that the keeping of an Army in time of peace shall be against the law
	unless it be with consent of Parliament.
	So one of the Bill's most important functions is providing the legal basis for the armed forces to continue to exist.
	As the Ministry of Defence normally has a Bill only every five years, there is a tendency to aggregate proposals that require primary legislation until the next one comes along. Consequently, armed forces Bills sometimes cover a much wider range of topics than service discipline, which is traditionally the main subject. The Bill is an instance of that practice. It contains eight main groups of clauses.
	The first group of clauses deals with renewal, and the second with the armed forces covenant. I will speak about those groups in a few moments. The third group covers the service police forces and the Ministry of Defence police. The fourth relates to powers of entry, search and seizure. The fifth provides for testing service personnel, in specified circumstances, for alcohol and drugs. The sixth relates to punishments and other court orders. The seventh makes a small number of changes to the Armed Forces Act 2006. The eighth makes amendments and repeals other primary legislation.

Angus Robertson: The Secretary of State knows that there are no provisions to deal with the closure or realignment of military facilities, which are currently considered by the Ministry of Defence, in secret, or to support communities after bases are closed. In contrast, the United States, through legislation, has a transparent process, which is managed by a commission. There is a vote on Capitol hill, and an agency that helps communities that are affected by closures and realignment. Why does the UK not emulate that? Will the Government consider including provisions to achieve that in the Bill?

Liam Fox: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Government are examining basing, and will report to Parliament in due course. I believe that it is not a matter for the Bill.
	Clause 1 provides for renewal of the legislation, which would otherwise expire in November. It allows the legislation to be renewed each year through an Order in Council, which must be debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. However, the clause also provides that renewal by Order in Council may be done for a maximum of only five years, after which the Act must once again be renewed by primary legislation. The effect is that the legislation governing the armed forces will expire no later than 2016, unless it is renewed before then by primary legislation. That rightly provides for parliamentary scrutiny. In effect, it is the mechanism whereby parliamentary control over our armed forces is exercised.
	I wish to focus on four topics: the armed forces covenant; the independence of the service police forces; testing for drugs and alcohol, and the appointment of civilian prosecutors. I believe that they are likely to be the subjects of greatest interest to hon. Members during the Bill's passage.
	I should like to begin with the clause that refers to the armed forces covenant. Since coming to office, the coalition Government have confirmed their commitment to rebuilding the covenant, to do the right thing by the men and women who have joined our armed forces, today and in the past, together with their families.

Bob Russell: I thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to 16th Air Assault Brigade in Helmand province and for his generous words there and on his return.
	The Secretary of State will know that I put a question to the Prime Minister only a few weeks ago about whether it was fair for war widows to pay tax on their war widows' pensions. Will that requirement be removed as part of the covenant?

Liam Fox: No, not as part of the Bill. However, while the Bill sets out the framework for the covenant, there are ample opportunities in Parliament to change any of the rules and regulations that relate to the armed forces in several ways, through the usual procedures available to the House.
	As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken of the Government's desire to enshrine the covenant in law. We have been considering the best way to do that. Our starting point is that the armed forces covenant is fundamentally a moral obligation on the Government, the nation and the armed forces. It is an agreement between the armed forces and the whole nation, not just the Government. It can never be defined by a host of rules and regulations, designed to tell everyone exactly what to do in every circumstance. Certainly, as I have just said to my hon. Friend, when rules need to be changed, we will do so. However, generally the people of this country know how service personnel should be treated, and our task is to create the right framework for that to happen.

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State will know that I entirely agree with him about the moral imperative behind the covenant. Some 9% of the armed forces personnel come from Wales, yet only 2% of the armed forces personnel are based in Wales, and that is one of the things that makes it more difficult to have continuity of care for those people once they have left the armed forces. Will the Secretary of State look carefully at basing more of the armed forces personnel in Wales so that that continuity can be maintained, and how will he ensure that the relationship with the Welsh Assembly Government, who have responsibility for health care, education and housing, is maintained?

Liam Fox: I will come on to the issue of the devolved bodies in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to get me on to the basing debate again. The primary duty of the Government is to ensure that the armed forces are laid out across the United Kingdom in the way that is most beneficial to the defence of the country. However, if the hon. Gentleman is looking for a champion of the cause of the armed forces being tied to the whole concept of the Union, he does not have to look much further. I believe that as we have units that represent the whole of the United Kingdom, we should look, where possible, to ensure that we have basing across the whole of the United Kingdom; but, as I say, the primary responsibility of the Government is to ensure that bases are allocated in a way that makes the greatest sense in terms of the wider defence of the country.
	The armed forces covenant is of such importance that it needs to be brought properly to the attention of Parliament. We propose to do this not through long and complex legislation, but through the mechanism of an annual forces covenant report. The relevant clause in the Bill will require me to lay a report before the House every year on the effects that membership of the armed forces has on service people. I have no doubt that the House will wish to take notice of that annual report and undertake whatever scrutiny it considers appropriate.

Elfyn Llwyd: During evidence-taking with the Howard League for Penal Reform, one ex-chief of the armed forces suggested it might be a good idea if there were a Minister within the Cabinet Office with cross-cutting responsibilities dealing with veterans, because the issues involved here are far broader than health, education and so forth. Will the Government consider that at some point?

Liam Fox: The Government are certainly considering better cross-departmental working on these issues. To be fair to the previous Government, they did begin some of this work to see how there could be better co-ordination across Whitehall. We have a number of pieces of work under way, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), looking at how we can better co-ordinate what is happening in health and social services, for example, with what the Ministry of Defence intends to do. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the same end as that which we seek, but the means by which we achieve it may be open to some debate between us.

Bob Ainsworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Royal British Legion has written to some, if not all, Members about its concerns about the process he is putting in place. When we undertook the service personnel Command Paper, we were anxious not only to improve the relationship between the armed forces and different Government Departments, but to put in place a mechanism that made sure that that did not fall into disrepair and that the situation was independently updated. The RBL is worried that the mechanism the Secretary of State is proposing effectively takes over from that, and does away with the independent reporting mechanism brought in by the Command Paper for the reference group to report on an annual and a five-yearly basis on the need for improvements to what we might call the covenant. Will the Secretary of State respond to that, because it is of concern to the British Legion as well as to me?

Liam Fox: I believe the concerns set out in the letter from the British Legion that all Members will have received are unfounded. We intend to build on that independence in respect of the external reference group, and I will be happy to discuss exactly how that will feed into the new process with the British Legion throughout the passage of the legislation. We all want the same thing: we all want there to be proper scrutiny of what Government, across the whole of government, do in terms of our service personnel. I hope we can maintain that independent element, and we can discuss with the British Legion how that feeds into the report that will ultimately come to this House. I am very open-minded about how we do that, but I do want to maintain this element of independent reporting so that when the House receives the report from the Secretary of State it is able to access as much information as possible not just from the Government, but externally sourced as well. I think that any belief that seems to have come from the legion on that is misplaced. The Government intend to be as open as possible during the entire process, and will certainly be happy to discuss the matter during subsequent stages of the Bill, and to discuss with the bodies involved how we can best make this happen.

Julian Lewis: While we are on the subject of cross-departmental responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend say a word, in particular, about mental health issues, about which I know he is concerned? I believe that I am right in saying that the average time for serious post-traumatic mental health issues to emerge is about 14 years after leaving the service, which inevitably means that Departments other than his own will have to be involved in care and welfare. Does he have any observations to make on that?

Liam Fox: I would like gently to correct my hon. Friend's statistics: complex post-traumatic stress disorder can emerge up to 14 years afterwards; 14 is not the average figure, and in fact it is often much earlier than that. However, he is correct that there is a time spectrum involved here, which is why it is essential that we have in place mechanisms to deal not only with those who present acutely, but with those who present at a much later date. We shall be undertaking further work and research to ensure that the mechanisms we put in place to deal with that are fully informed by the objective evidence of the science of the day.
	I reiterate what I have said in the House before: we are seeing a modest increase in the number of cases of PTSD. We have seen them related to conflicts as long ago as the Falklands; we have seen them from the Gulf war; and we are bound to see them from Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we are not able to deal with those issues and put in place the mechanisms for dealing with them adequately, we will let down not only those who have put themselves at risk for our country's security, but the country itself. As I said before, I believe that still in this country mental health is too much of a Cinderella service in health care in general. We must not allow that to happen in the armed forces, especially for those who have been willing to sacrifice themselves for us.

Menzies Campbell: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous in doing so. He will be aware that the Bill places upon him a duty to lay a report before the House of Commons on health care, education and housing, and that he has a discretion to go beyond those topics-that is expressly provided for. In view of what he has just said about health care being a Cinderella subject, would it not be appropriate to put it in the Bill as a topic upon which he has a duty, like other duties, to report in express terms to the House?

Liam Fox: It is clear that the Government intend such a report to include health care, housing and education. However, my right hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I would happily be tempted into other areas within the discretion that the Bill allows. That is an absolute minimum. The country would expect us to look at wider and interrelated issues, if we are to offer the degree of scrutiny that the House and the country would want on this subject.
	Clause 2 provides for what the Secretary of State must cover in his report, and as my right hon. and learned Friend said, effects on health care, education and housing will normally be addressed in it. There are perennial issues that I believe will always be important to the service and ex-service community, and those are among the foremost. Other issues will emerge at the time, so the Bill provides for flexibility, and I will want to consider other issues as they emerge.
	There is also the question about who is covered in the Bill. The Bill refers to a broad span of people. The total number of serving and former personnel and their families is about 10 million-one in six of the population of this country. For ex-service personnel, the Bill specifies an interest in those who are resident in the UK. Again, that does not prevent a Secretary of State from covering relevant issues for those who live abroad, although many aspects of their lives would be matters for their own Governments.
	The Bill-rightly in the Government's view-says little about how the annual report will be prepared, but as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), we intend to consult widely and to ensure that there is rigour and independence in the information that is ultimately put before the House through the Secretary of State's report. My intention, as Defence Secretary, will therefore be to consult widely with interested parties, inside and outside Government, in preparing a report. Charities and devolved Administrations will have much to contribute, as too, no doubt, will Members of the House of Commons.
	I also believe, however, that the report will evolve over time. We are breaking new ground, and we will learn from experience, listen to comments and move forward together in a positive way. I am clear that that is the right way to proceed, rather than making the legislation excessively prescriptive.
	The Bill also contains a group of clauses that will further buttress the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations. I am delighted that shortly before Christmas the High Court gave a strong endorsement of the ability of the service police to investigate, under the Armed Forces Act 2006, the most serious allegations. Nevertheless, we want to be sure that the independence and effectiveness of service police investigations have all the safeguards we can reasonably provide.
	The first clause in the group places on each of the three provost marshals-the heads of the service police forces-a duty to ensure that service police investigations are carried out free from improper interference. The second clause provides for the service police to be inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The inspectorate has previously inspected the service police on a voluntary basis, but the clause places an obligation on it to carry out inspections of the service police and lay its reports before Parliament. The third clause provides that the three provost marshals will in future be appointed to their positions by Her Majesty the Queen. Once again, that recognises and reinforces their independence from the service chains of command when carrying out investigations. In making these changes, we seek to ensure that the service police will continue to carry out to the highest standards their role as a part of the armed forces but one that is independent of the main chains of command, and I believe that the provisions in the Bill will do just that.

Mark Lancaster: Given the harmonisation of military law across the three services, does the Secretary of State feel that perhaps the time has come to be bolder? Why do we still need three separate police forces within the armed forces? Why can we not have one military police force, given that all these forces now undertake training together?

Liam Fox: I know that this issue was examined by the previous Government, as it has been by this Government. The view that has been taken is that because there are differences between the three services this approach is culturally the best way to go about things. If my hon. Friend has very strong views on this, I am sure that he will be willing to bring them to the House, perhaps in the form of an amendment, during the passage of the Bill. That would give us a chance to debate the merits and demerits of this approach further. There are undoubtedly arguments on both sides and the Government have just decided that, out of due respect for the differences between the services, this was the best way for us to continue to proceed.
	Other provisions in the Bill introduce a new regime under which service personnel commit an offence if they exceed an alcohol limit while carrying out certain duties. The limits and duties will be prescribed in regulations subject to the affirmative resolution of both Houses. The Bill also contains provisions allowing commanding officers the flexibility to test on a case-by-case basis in two circumstances. One is where they have reasonable cause to believe that a service person's ability to carry out a prescribed duty is impaired due to drugs or alcohol. The other is where they have reasonable cause to believe that such a person is in breach of a limit on alcohol specified in regulations in relation to particular duties.
	The main reason behind those changes is to increase safety and to act as a deterrent, and I wish to explain to the House why that is. When Parliament approved the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and regulations were made under it, the provisions were not extended to the services because they were considered to be too restrictive, given that so many service personnel are engaged in potentially dangerous activities in the course of their employment. That exemption had wide cross-party support at the time. Against that background, the then Government gave an undertaking that a bespoke scheme would be created for the armed forces. Policy development was too immature for proposals to be included in the last Armed Forces Bill and progress had since stalled due to a lack of a legislative vehicle, so I am pleased that such a scheme is included in this Bill. The provisions in this group are important, because they are aimed at creating a safer environment when service personnel are carrying out safety-critical tasks in the course of their employment, both generally and when on operations. Rather than limiting commanding officers to acting after an incident has taken place, as happens at present, the changes in the Bill will allow commanding officers also to act earlier in the future. One of the concerns that I expressed during the passage of the previous Bill was that it might reduce the freedom and discretion of commanding officers. A number of changes in this Bill go to redress that in some way.

Bob Stewart: As a past commanding officer, I think that it is an extremely good thing that more power be given back to commanding officers, including discretionary power. I think particularly of warrant officers who offend. It has been mandatory to reduce such officers to the ranks, but if they have done 20 years in the armed forces, that will have a deep effect on their pensions, for example. Therefore, this is a good change to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and I congratulate the Secretary of State on introducing it.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The change that he refers to will not only give discretion but provide a sense proportion and justice in dealing with such issues. The idea of a draconian, one-size-fits-all punishment is not in line with the traditions of this country or the armed forces. This is a sensible change that will command support on both sides of the House.
	At present, the Director of Service Prosecutions is allowed under the Armed Forces Act to delegate his functions only to legally qualified service officers. As a result, the prosecuting staff at the Service Prosecuting Authority are all service lawyers. Given the small number of service lawyers and the competing pressure on them, the Director of Service Prosecutions has asked for a provision to be added to the Bill to allow civilian lawyers to be appointed to posts in the Service Prosecuting Authority.
	The burden of the cases referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions and the complexity of those cases may continue to increase. The service police continue to investigate allegations of serious criminal offences, including sexual offences, fraud and computer-based crime; and allegations arising out of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The decisions taken to prosecute or not to prosecute, especially those cases where there is an operational context, are often finely balanced and involve difficult prosecution decisions.
	The change is being made as a reasonable precaution to allow the Director of Service Prosecutions the flexibility to appoint civilian prosecutors. That will be done only if it becomes necessary in order to ensure that the Service Prosecuting Authority continues to have access to an adequate number of prosecutors with the necessary professional skills. All those involved greatly value the benefits of Service Prosecuting Authority lawyers being current serving officers. There is no intention to move to a completely civilian authority.
	The Director of Service Prosecutions acts independently of my Department and comes under the general superintendence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. It would be for him to decide if such a change were needed. There has been an exchange between my Department and the Attorney-General setting out the circumstances in which the provision would be brought into force. As part of that, it is clear that there would be consultation between our two Departments before any action were taken.
	I believe that our Armed Forces are among the best, if not the best, in the world. One of the reasons that they are so good is that they conduct themselves with great discipline. It is something for which our armed forces have a deserved reputation throughout the world. The Bill helps to underpin that discipline. It will ensure that our armed forces continue to have a fair and modern system of service justice that underpins the operational effectiveness of which we are all in the House rightly proud. I commend the Bill to the House.

Jim Murphy: I join the Secretary of State in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the whole House a happy and healthy 2011.
	I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on the Bill. The Armed Forces Act 2006 was a watershed for the military disciplinary system and I am glad to have the opportunity to renew and improve it through this Bill. Before I do so, I want to do what the Secretary of State rightly did and make a comment or two about Afghanistan.
	As we gather after the new year recess, during which we enjoyed the company of and time with our families and loved ones, it is a time for us to remember how fortunate we are for the peaceful lives that we and, for the most part, our constituents lead and to reflect on the sacrifices that others make on our behalf to enable us to enjoy the opportunities that we do. Upwards of 10,000 men and women serving in Afghanistan did not spend Christmas with their families but, rather, stood up against an enemy that wishes to destroy all that we hold dear. The whole House will rightly thank them and send them our deepest and best wishes.
	Tragically, for some families that absence is now permanent. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who have died in the service of our country over the Christmas and new year period: Private Joseva Vatubua of 5th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland; Warrant Officer Charles Wood of 23 Pioneer Regiment the Royal Logistic Corps; Corporal Steven Dunn from 216 (Parachute) Signal Squadron, attached to 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment Battlegroup; and Private John Howard from 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment. Their patriotism, courage and dedication are unsurpassed. They will always be remembered by their friends and family and should never be forgotten by this House.
	On Afghanistan, I want to say to this House, our forces and, importantly, our enemies that the Government will always have the support of the Opposition when they do the right thing to support our service personnel. We will continue to conduct debates on Afghanistan, in particular, in a spirit of comradeship, for that is in the national interest above all party interest.
	The Armed Forces Bill is important and I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the issues that arise from it. The 2006 Act consolidated and modernised all the previous service discipline Acts and replaced them with a single system of service law that amounted to a complete overhaul of legislation on military law and service discipline. The Bill is, as the Secretary of State said, an important continuation of that Act that makes some modest but sensible changes.
	The Bill's contents concern the welfare, well-being and management of our service personnel. The previous Government had a strong record in that area, not just because of the introduction of the 2006 Act but because we ensured that forces' pay increases were among the highest in the public sector, invested in accommodation and rehabilitation facilities and increased access to the NHS for dependants. The previous Government also published the service personnel Command Paper in 2008-the first cross-Government strategy on the welfare of armed forces personnel. That doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries, doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations, gave better access to housing schemes and health care, offered free access to further education for service leavers with six years' service and ensured more telephone and internet access for those deployed in Afghanistan.

Bob Russell: I acknowledge that the previous Government did a tremendous amount for the armed forces, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even after 13 years of Labour Government there is still a long way to go to bring much of the married housing accommodation for our brave soldiers-and presumably for airmen and naval personnel, but I am talking about the Army-up to an acceptable living standard?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and the tone in which he makes it is above partisanship or politics. There is a constant pressure on all Governments to ensure that the families of the remarkable men and women whom we often vote to put in harm's way are properly looked after here at home. I would encourage him-perhaps gently-to reflect on whether the Government that he so strongly supports, on most occasions, are putting the nation's money where his mouth is. He has raised an important point and I know that Ministers will consider it. Ministers will be judged on their record on that matter.
	The Bill is part of a wider body of work that seeks to ensure that the men and women who give awe-inspiring service and provide security not just in the UK but for all those they protect abroad can do their job to the highest order with the recognition they rightly deserve. It is right that the service police should have the powers they need and I welcome the increased powers passed to them in the Bill. I welcome, in particular, the provision on access to excluded material, which is essential in allowing successful investigations. It is also correct that we have proper checks and balances on the work of the service police, so I welcome the additional powers for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary to inspect their work. The Bill includes provisions to strengthen the structural independence of the police and to introduce a provost marshal to ensure that investigations are free from improper interference, which is an important development. The Bill also makes important changes to the service justice system, in particular by ensuring that service police disciplinary systems are compatible with and complementary to the European convention on human rights.
	The Bill will make the lives of service personnel and civilians safer through the introduction of service sexual offences prevention orders to protect members of the service community outside the United Kingdom. I also welcome moves to strengthen the independence and impartiality of service complaints procedures as well as moves to update regulations to protect prisoners of war detained by UK forces.
	I have a number of questions relating to the Bill and to the Government's record on the military covenant to date, and I look forward to hearing the Minister answer some of them in his winding-up speech. Before the election, the Opposition said that repairing the broken military covenant was long overdue. Surely I am not the only one who now believes that there is a dramatic mismatch between this Government's pre-election words and their post-election actions; the difference between the rhetoric and the reality is striking.
	In October last year, the Secretary of State said that he would rebuild the military covenant, so, with a spring in his step, he launched a taskforce, which reported in December to much fanfare. He committed to taking forward two recommendations: first, that there should be an armed forces community covenant, encouraging volunteers to support their local forces; and, secondly, that there should be a commendation scheme to thank individuals or bodies that support the forces. As measures that the Secretary of State has claimed will strengthen the bonds between this country and the armed forces, they are worthy in name but not sufficient in action. No one who is serious about the military covenant considers those proposals to be substantive.
	Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, who is chairman of the Forces Pension Society, has described the taskforce's proposals as:
	Incredibly wet and feeble. All flute music and arm waving.

Nick Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the change from RPI to CPI for pensions uprating will cost many service personnel dearly over their lives?

Jim Murphy: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these issues. He is right to mention that matter, which I will address in a moment or two. It is a heartless, savage cut against the families who rely on that support.

Julian Lewis: I am sorry that the shadow Secretary of State is introducing a partisan note into this debate. As he has done so, however, does he agree that the introduction of plans for university scholarships for the children of armed services personnel who are killed in action is welcome, particularly in the light of certain changes to university charges on which he and I probably agree?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is usually very fair in these debates, and I think he will acknowledge that I have already welcomed six or seven of the measures in the Bill in my speech. There is nothing wrong with echoing the comments of Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore, chairman of the Forces Pension Society, who has criticised the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to criticise Vice-Admiral Sir Michael Moore.

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his consensuality, which I, as a service pensioner, welcome. Will he not recognise in his remarks, which are becoming a little partisan, that this Government doubled the operational allowance within days of the general election? I assume that he welcomed that.

Jim Murphy: I think that the hon. Gentleman called me the Secretary of State; of course, I am the shadow Secretary of State, but I am sure that will be corrected by  Hansard. There are measures that we welcome, some of which I have alluded to already; I shall discuss some of the others later and will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene at that point if he wishes.
	The Conservative manifesto pledged to ensure that our armed forces, their families and our veterans are properly taken care of, but the taskforce was tasked with finding
	innovative, low-cost policy ideas.
	It is difficult for any Government to find the right support for our armed forces on the cheap, without necessary and adequate funding. They have not yet responded to the work of the taskforce.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the efforts and changes to maximise rest and recuperation for deployed personnel should be greatly welcomed? That issue has arisen in the past and the new Ministry has made great efforts to make improvements.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point and like him I look forward to looking in detail at the outcome of the Government's review into tour lengths and tours of duty. We will both take a keen interest in that.

Liam Fox: The shadow Secretary of State asks why, seven months into government, we have not made more progress, but the previous Government left behind debt equivalent to £16,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The interest on the deficit is greater than the defence budget for this year and the economic position is a strategic liability, so there is no point in the Opposition adopting a high moral tone-he was a member of the Cabinet who left us in this drastic economic position. He might consider his own culpability for our being in a position that makes it more difficult for us to achieve many of the things we want.

Jim Murphy: There we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker -the right hon. Gentleman advocates such a timid Bill because the cuts that he is determined to make in the Ministry of Defence will not allow him to achieve his ambition. I can do nothing more than quote again Sir Michael Moore, the chair of the Forces Pension Society, who said:
	I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.

James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman's thesis seems to be that we are not going far enough in repairing the damage to the military covenant. Does he remember the moment in 2007, shortly after Lord Guthrie resigned as Chief of the Defence Staff under his Ministry, when Lord Guthrie said in the House of Lords that he could not remember a Government ever having been so bad at keeping their side of the bargain and honouring the military covenant? The covenant was wrecked under the right hon. Gentleman's Government and we are taking steps to put it right; surely he should acknowledge that.

Jim Murphy: We introduced the first cross-Government strategy on the welfare of the armed forces, we doubled compensation payments for the most seriously injured, we doubled the welfare grant for those in operation and we gave better access to housing schemes and health care. If the hon. Gentleman's point is that Governments can and should always try to do more, of course that is the case, but it is difficult for him both to demand that Labour should have done more when in power and defend the level of his Government's cuts. Those contradictory positions cannot be achieved in one intervention.

Bob Ainsworth: As we have descended into being a little partisan, let me ask whether my right hon. Friend remembers that as well as doubling the up-front payment for compensation, we introduced, through the auspices of Admiral Boyce, further improvements in the compensation scheme. One of the improvements that I was most concerned to secure was an increase above the rate of inflation for soldiers who were injured early in life, and therefore before their career had developed, to compensate them for the development that they would inevitably have made. However, the change from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index will take that money back from the very people who have benefited from the improvements that Admiral Boyce brought in on our behalf.

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend, a former Secretary of State for Defence, is rightly proud of the work that he did on the review, and of the way in which an effort was made to ensure that the families of those in the armed forces on the lowest pay had the in-built protection that if the worst happened to their loved one they would not be expected to live on very meagre support for decades. He should be eternally proud of the fact that such measures were introduced. I can only hope that as the Government take forward their proposals, those measures are protected, but there is strong doubt about that.

Alun Cairns: If the armed forces were valued as much under the previous Administration, why, according to the continuous attitude survey, did only 32% of those serving in the armed forces feel sufficiently valued?

Jim Murphy: The fact is that, in previous years, in very difficult circumstances, the support available to our armed forces increased year on year-through pay, pensions and improvements in housing, health care and much else besides. If the hon. Gentleman's challenge is that we did not do enough, of course there is always a challenge to do more, but it is difficult to demand that we should have done more to support the proposals that he is supporting today. He has to be a fiscal hawk or a fiscal dove on these issues; he cannot be both in the same intervention.

Menzies Campbell: I hope that the shadow Secretary of State will not complain too much if I chide him a little for giving the impression that the morale of the armed forces has been dealt with in the way that Sir Michael Moore indicated. My regular contact with the armed forces is with RAF Leuchars, about which, as the shadow Secretary of State knows, there has been some unwelcome speculation. The professionalism and the intensity of the training that is performed there is unmatched. In the past week or so, the first Typhoon aircraft was scrambled from RAF Leuchars so that it could fulfil its responsibilities under the quick reaction alert. One has to be very careful about translating the remarks of someone who has an obvious, though quite legitimate, interest into general comment and criticism of the armed forces.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a typically fair point in his own careful way. He is right to say that the constant challenge for politicians of all parties is how we support our armed forces and maintain their morale. My contention is that the Government have missed opportunities, and in Committee we will table amendments seeking further improvements to a Bill that makes sensible but modest improvements to our armed forces.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the shadow Secretary of State make the following connection, as I do? Perhaps only 32% of those in the armed forces felt valued because only 35%, as I understand it, felt that they had the right equipment in the field. Is it not important to ensure that our armed forces have appropriate equipment in the field?

Jim Murphy: There were record levels of investment and support provided, with regard to the kit and equipment of our armed forces in the field and in theatre. I say again that it is a constant challenge to get that equipment to them as quickly as we can, on cost and on budget. However, there is a wider issue that, if he was being fair, the hon. Gentleman would also have sought to address: the wider disconnect between the public and the military. Our nation is remarkably generous, particularly around Remembrance Sunday-in the weeks before it, and for some time after. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not take this as a partisan point, because it is not intended as such. We all have to reflect, as individuals, law makers and citizens, on how we ensure that that act of remembrance is not a Remembrance Sunday event, but an all-year-round event.
	There is a wider issue about the level of connection and affiliation between our armed forces and our citizens at large. We are all in awe of our armed forces; if one asks any man or woman, or any young teenager in the street, one realises that they are in awe of the action that our armed forces take, but we can learn lessons from other nations, particularly now that our armed forces, after the horrors of the greater violence in Northern Ireland, are able more regularly to wear their uniform in public. That is one important change that will increase awareness of our armed forces. There is an issue about the armed forces' morale, but there is also a wider issue about public sentiment that we have to address.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the importance of remembrance. He is also right to identify the promises made by the then Conservative Opposition about veterans and their welfare. They said in their manifesto that they would sort out, in particular, the Christmas island veterans, who have been waiting for years and are still waiting for compensation.

Jim Murphy: As my hon. Friend knows, the previous Government offered a compensation deal. That was not resolved. The Government will rightly come forward with their own proposals. He and I will eagerly scrutinise the specifics of the proposals that the Government eventually produce.
	I return to an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), the former Secretary of State, which is the subject of clause 2 -the annual publication of the armed forces covenant report. Although I strongly welcome the continuation of the previous Government's plans to provide an annual report scrutinising the Government's progress on implementing commitments to strengthen the covenant, it is troubling that responsibility for doing so has been moved from independent experts and into the political control of Ministers.
	It is welcome that we will have a debate in the House on the military covenant, but that should not be at the expense of proper independent scrutiny. One of the innovations of 2008 was the impartial oversight of Government progress in strengthening the military covenant. The external reference group, comprising charities and civil servant experts, was established as an independent monitor of the Government's implementation of the service Command Paper. This was vital in ensuring public confidence in our commitment to issues that transcend party politics.
	It is peculiar and puzzling that the Government, who are committed to cuts in spending in defence, now seem to have embarked on cuts in accountability in defence.  [Interruption.] It is essential that the reports are independent, expert-led and above party politics. The Secretary of State is chuntering from a sedentary position. As he knows, the Royal British Legion has already raised concerns about the issue- [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, with a cavalier swish of the hand, that he has already dealt with it. He has already spoken about it, but that is different from having dealt with it. The Royal British Legion should not be dismissed in such a cavalier way.
	Ministers will have to work very hard to persuade anyone other than themselves that they are better placed than charities and experts, often comprising ex-service personnel and their families, to produce that report.

James Gray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a very beneficial improvement that rather than merely independent organisations scrutinising such reports, the Secretary of State will annually place a report before the House for its scrutiny? That is an increase in ministerial accountability and in the power of Parliament. Surely he should welcome that.

Jim Murphy: I have already welcomed the report and the fact that there will be an annual debate, but I do not welcome the fact that the production of the report will be in the hands of Ministers, rather than independent experts. It is an issue about which the Royal British Legion feels strongly.

Andrew Murrison: The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. Can he define independent? I have attended a meeting of the external reference group and found it to be anything but. It is certainly made up, in part, of independent individuals, but also largely of officials, who can in no way be said to be independent of the Government.

Jim Murphy: I do not think Madam Deputy Speaker would welcome an attempt by me to provide the House with a definition of independence, but the fact that the three armed forces families federations are on the expert group gives it authority, independence, clarity and sincerity that, with the best will in the world, the most capable and sincere Minister cannot of himself provide. It is important that that work is continued.
	My most serious concerns are about the proposals on armed forces pensions. The Government plan to link forces pension rises permanently to the consumer prices index, rather than to the retail prices index. That is a serious misjudgment and an indictment of the Government's claim to want to strengthen the military covenant. We are in no doubt that in the current climate there is a need for restraint in public sector pay and pensions, but that year-on-year change will disproportionately affect members of the armed forces and their dependants, who rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else.
	The impact of the proposed changes will be devastating. A 27-year-old corporal who has lost both his legs in a bomb blast in Afghanistan will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. War widows will also lose out enormously. The 34-year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would, over her lifetime, be almost £750,000 worse off.
	There can be only two possible justifications for that policy. First, Ministers think it right to reduce year on year the support to forces personnel and their dependants, and support the policy presumably because they consider the current support to be unfairly generous. The Secretary of State did not support the policy on that basis today, nor I suspect will any Government Back Bencher.
	The second possible reason for this heartless policy is deficit reduction, but that argument does not add up either. The impact of the measures will be felt long after the deficit has been paid down and the economy has returned to growth. I ask Ministers today to commit to rethink the policy or, in the absence of a full rethink, and if they believe that it is part of their deficit reduction plan, to consider a time-limited measure during the period of deficit reduction and spending restraint. That would be a fairer approach. There is no logical reason why the bravest British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan should see their pensions reduced for the rest of their lives, or why war widows, who have had the person most special to them taken away, deserve to have taken away from them the support on which they so depend.
	When challenged on the issue in November, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said:
	It is not possible to treat the armed forces differently from other public servants.

Bob Russell: The shadow Secretary of State heard me put my question to the Secretary of State. Was the shadow Secretary of State aware that war widows paid income tax on their war widows' pension?

Jim Murphy: I was aware of that, and the hon. Gentleman will continue to make his case on it to the Government, but, with respect, although my point today is about the same issue, it is a slightly different one. Those who say, as the MOD spokesman said in November, that it is not possible to treat armed forces personnel differently from other public servants show a woeful and deeply worrying lack of understanding and respect for the unique nature of military service.
	Service personnel, as many of us know, can be required to work unlimited hours in excessively dangerous conditions with no prospect of overtime or a bonus; they can be imprisoned for failing to show up; living conditions can, understandably, be very tough; they are often separated from family and loved ones for many months at a time; they can be compelled to return even after they have retired; they forgo several political freedoms and contractual rights that others rightly enjoy; and, as we know, they are at risk of being killed or horribly maimed as a direct result and an unavoidable consequence of their service. Often their pension is the only serious, tangible financial compensation available to them, and no Government should ever claim that it is not possible to distinguish in favour of our armed forces.

Dan Byles: I am a little confused. Was the shadow Secretary of State not a member of the Government who went to court to fight to reduce compensation payments to wounded British soldiers returning from Afghanistan? His litany of righteous indignation does not sit well with that, so will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the previous Government for that disgraceful action?

Jim Murphy: I cannot help the fact that the hon. Gentleman is confused; that is for him to resolve. The point is that, as part of the Boyce review, we are committed to increasing some of those payments. He calls it righteous indignation, and I do not know whether that is his attempt to justify the policy that his Government are implementing, but I do not think that it is righteous indignation to say that, if someone at this very moment serving in Afghanistan finds themselves in harm's way, their wife, at home with their children, should reasonably expect decent support.

Alun Cairns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jim Murphy: Of course, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your understanding, I recognise that time is against us. I have taken numerous interventions and others wish to speak, but I wonder whether I can entice the hon. Gentleman, if he wishes, to support the Government's proposal for that change to pensions.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. I certainly support the actions of the Government in doubling the operational allowance. If the right hon. Gentleman thought so highly of the forces when he was a member of the previous Administration, why was the operational allowance pitched at such a low level?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has got to his feet again and failed again. All I am asking today is that the Government listen to the arguments being made by the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the families' federations, and think again about the policy. I acknowledge that I was partisan about the other issue of scrutiny- [Interruption.] I am really making an appeal to justice and the better spirit of Government Members. They should reflect again on this issue.

Bob Ainsworth: Have I correctly understood the figures that my right hon. Friend has just cited? Given what he has just said, I now believe that the changes that are about to be introduced to the way in which the pension is calculated will not only remove all the improvements made by the Boyce review but go further and lead to levels of compensation for young injured soldiers that are lower than they were before the Boyce review. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) complained about in terms of the actions taken by the previous Government to keep the compensation scheme balanced. Is that right?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Defence has paid close attention to these matters. He has looked at these issues with great care. Given the analysis available, there is a strong case for the conclusion that the changes take us back to pre-Boyce levels.

Liam Fox: indicated dissent.

Jim Murphy: The Secretary of State shakes his head. I invite him to correct the record if he wishes.  [Interruption.] He says from a sedentary position that he has plenty of time to do so. I give him the time today.  [Interruption.] He says, Get on with it. Even the Secretary of State will not rise to his feet to support his own policy.
	The military covenant goes to the heart of the relationship between the military, society and the Government, as the Secretary of State rightly said. It should and will never be the exclusive property of one political party. However, no Government can cut the support to Afghan war widows and claim to be honouring the military covenant. The truth is that this is a Government of convenience, who, in taking money from Afghan war widows, have lost the courage of their conscience.
	The Government's actions are particularly hard to comprehend when one considers that in July 2009 the previous Government published a Green Paper entitled The Nation's Commitment to the Armed Forces Community, in which some truly innovative proposals were made. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at that Green Paper to see which aspects of it can be included in this Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take forward those ideas, which would not just give real help to the forces community but continue to demonstrate the Government's commitment to serving the interests of those who put their lives on the line. I urge the Government to look again at the proposals.
	This debate is also an opportunity for the Government to confirm that they will look again at another of their recent proposals, which in my view is one of their most regrettable decisions-the decision to scrap the chief coroner's office. That office would give families who have lost those closest to them, often in tragic, painful and extremely complex circumstances, the right to the best possible investigations and military inquests into the deaths. Last month's decision by the Lords, by a significant majority, to save the chief coroner's office gives the Government the opportunity to think again. They should listen not only to the House of Lords but to the Royal British Legion, and retain the chief coroner's office.
	Today's debate is an opportunity to further the passage of a Bill that in general we support. It will make sensible and important changes to procedures that will ensure that our armed forces can perform to the highest standards and are effectively regulated. But it is also more than that. It is an opportunity for the Government to think again-not about Afghanistan, where they should and rightly will remain resolute, but about cuts to the independent scrutiny of the Government's progress on the covenant, about matching their pre-election pledges to their post-election actions and about the introduction of permanent reductions in the support of those who serve our nation and their families. If they do think again, there will be a very warm welcome not only in this House but, much more importantly, in the houses of service families across our nation.

Mark Lancaster: It is an honour and a privilege to contribute to the debate. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of Her Majesty's armed forces and as a serving commissioned officer in the Territorial Army.
	It is fascinating to consider the history of why we are discussing this matter today as it dates back to the 1688 Bill of Rights, under which it is effectively against the law to have a standing army without the consent of Parliament. Given that history, it is a particular honour to speak on the matter today. However, it is also an honour to do so as a member of the armed forces affected by this Bill. However, because it sits uncomfortably with some that members of the regular armed forces are not allowed to sit as Members of Parliament while members of the reserved forces are, it is not an honour I intend to abuse today.
	My experience has shown that members of the armed forces are very interested in politics, but they are not interested in party politics. When I wear a uniform, I always pride myself on being strictly apolitical and I intend to continue that today. Perhaps the test of my speech will be that, when read, it will seem as though it could have been spoken by a Government or Opposition Member.
	I welcome the Bill because, as the Secretary of State said, it is in many ways a tribute to the previous Government for the manner in which they put the Armed Forces Act 2006 through Parliament. The fact that the Bill is mainly a tidying-up measure is testament to that, although clause 2 on the military covenant-I will come to that later-is very important. I therefore give credit to the previous Government.
	There are, however, a few anomalies even though the 2006 Act attempted to tidy them up. In particular, there is the matter of military law being applied across the three services. I said that I am a Member of Parliament who is also a serving member of the armed forces and, to my knowledge, three other hon. Members also serve in the reserve forces. It may be of interest to the House that, as I stand here today, I am subject to military law as a commissioned officer in the Territorial Army. However, one of our colleagues, who merely through rank is not a commissioned officer, is not subject to military law as a serving Member of Parliament. That is an anomaly. All four of us have been mobilised and have been on operational service, and we all become subject to military law when that happens. It might seem a minor point but whether someone is subject to military law when they go to and from training in the Territorial Army is relevant.
	I shall give another simple example of an anomaly before I get into the detail of the Bill. Over recent weeks, there have been calls in the House that, as part of the military covenant, we should have some form of medal to allow members of the armed forces to show that they are in the armed forces. The Veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) has said that that should be subject to review. I do not think it should be subject to review; I simply do not think it should happen. If hon. Members want to argue that point, I am happy to debate the matter. My case is fairly typical in that have completed three operational tours and have been awarded three medals over 23 years. In addition, I have a Queen's golden jubilee medal, which was effectively given to me for being a member of the armed forces, and a long-service and good conduct medal-or the Territorial decoration as it was called then.
	My point is that such medals are awarded simply for serving in the armed forces and I am not convinced that giving people more medals simply for being a part of the armed forces is necessarily a good thing. However, it is an anomaly that, in the Territorial Army, both officers and soldiers can get what is now the volunteer reserves service medal while, in the regular Army, only soldiers are allowed to get a long-service and good conduct medal. It seems that officers do not receive that medal simply because their good conduct is taken for granted. That is another anomaly in which the House might be interested.

Chris Bryant: I pay tribute to the non-partisan way in which the hon. Gentleman is advancing his arguments. I have no medals-the closest I ever got was a Blue Peter badge. He is referring to the anomalies. An anomalous situation for many armed forces families is because those who are killed in action all come into the UK through one of two different airfields, there have often been very long waits for a proper post-mortem. That was one of the problems we tried to rectify through the creation of the post of chief coroner. Previously, families had to wait a very long time before they could have closure in relation to the death of their loved one. Does he agree that the Government are wrong to be abolishing that post and that it would be better for armed forces families if we were to keep it?

Mark Lancaster: I would have to consider that matter in detail. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps he should volunteer to sit on the Committee-I certainly will do so-and we can then explore the issue in greater detail. That is probably a sensible way forward, and it will be interesting to see whether he volunteers to be a member of the Committee.
	Clause 2 deals with the military covenant and that matter has already been mentioned in the debate. The Royal British Legion-I am proud to be vice-president of the Olney branch-has raised concerns, and the Secretary of State has promised to consider them and, indeed, deal with them. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the role of the external reference group to continue in some form or another. That is something else I expect we can explore in Committee.
	We have mainly talked about the three principal areas of health care, education and housing. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve on the Select Committee on Defence under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), when we looked at the issue of the education of service families. I am delighted that the Government have introduced some of our recommendations and we should continue to consider that matter. I am pleased that an annual report will be presented to Parliament.  [ Interruption. ] When I referred to the Government, the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), said from a sedentary position that it was the previous Government. I am actually being apolitical and mean the government of the land.
	There has been some concern that perhaps the Government's commitment to the military covenant does not go far enough and that the relationship between the armed forces and the Government should be enshrined in black and white. My personal feeling is it is not important what is in black and white for the lawyers to argue over; what is important is how the covenant has been interpreted by successive Governments. I shall give one example. After the introduction of joint personnel administration-the new payment computer system in the Army-there has been a problem with some junior ranks in the British Army being effectively overpaid for a number of months. That has amounted to a sizeable sum for some individuals. I do not think any fair-minded person would suggest that that money should not be paid back; it is an overpayment and we would all expect to pay it back. However, the true test of the covenant is how the money is paid back. It should not have to be paid back in a single lump sum in one pay cheque; those concerned should be allowed to pay the money back over time. That is just one example of how the application of the covenant, and not what appears in black and white, is important.
	To be honest, soldiers are quite cynical about government. They feel that any covenant would always be interpreted in the Government's favour. I hope that the Opposition will take that point in the spirit it is intended because it is simply an objective statement of fact.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that what is being put forward today is rather disappointing, especially in the light of the Green Paper that I produced in 2009, which set out not only what we had done in terms of the Command Paper, but how we could make what it referred to legally enforceable? Does he share my disappointment that the work and the response to that have not been brought forward in the Bill, so that the things put in place in the armed forces Command Paper would be legally enforceable?

Mark Lancaster: I do not, because the real test will be in the implementation. I have confidence that the Government will implement and uphold their end of the bargain, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating and only time will tell. Perhaps we can consider the matter again in one of our annual debates on the military covenant.
	I was going to give one example of where soldiers are perhaps right to be slightly cynical. I fully supported the previous Government's introduction of the operational allowance in October 2006. That was a good move, and it introduced a tax-free allowance of £2,240. However, it is worth remembering-I wish to make it clear that I think that this was more by cock-up than conspiracy-that at the same time the Government also cut the long-service separation allowance, meaning that a soldier on a six-month tour in Afghanistan lost £2,341. The Government gave with one hand and took away with the other, within the space of a month. When such moves happen, one can see why any soldier is entitled to be cynical of any Government. It is therefore very important that we see, over time, how the military covenant is improved.
	As I said from the Opposition Benches shortly after I got back from my operational tour in Afghanistan, there has been a major improvement in personal kit over the past few years. I felt that when I was mobilised in 2006, the standard of personal kit that I was given then was far better than the kit I was given when I was mobilised in 1999 or 2001-so, once again, credit to the previous Government for that improvement, which I should like to continue under this Government in future years.
	My other general point about the military covenant concerns rest and recuperation. I had personal experience of the problems of R and R on coming back from Afghanistan in 2006. Although I do not want to go into the details of the matter again-it was the subject of debate in this House for some time-I would like some reassurance from the Minister that the problems with the air bridge have been addressed. Clearly, we will always have trouble when we have to rely on airframes that are very old, but I have heard reports that unfortunately the problems experienced in 2006 are beginning to happen again. There have been calls for us to guarantee the two-week R and R period for soldiers in the middle of an operational tour. I do not support that for simple operational reasons. If a soldier were to lose a day at the beginning of his leave, a guarantee that he could come back from it a day later would make the whole manning plot for the commanding officer in theatre almost impossible. However, I would support a guarantee that if any R and R days are lost during an operational tour, they should be added to the post-tour leave. That is perfectly reasonable.
	I was slightly disappointed that neither Front Bencher chose to mention the reserve forces. That is an oversight that I should like to correct, especially given that some 15% of soldiers mobilised on operations are from the reserve forces. Members of the reserve forces face some very specific problems when they are mobilised. Any mobilisation process starts at the reserves training and mobilisation centre in Chilwell. If I am lucky enough to be selected to serve on the Bill Committee, I would like to suggest that we visit that facility, which plays a very valuable role. Having been through it on three occasions, I must say that the standard of service that it provides in preparing reservists for mobilisation has improved significantly over recent years.
	However, there can be major problems when a reservist returns home. Because, in general, they are mobilised as individual replacements, they lack the support that a regular soldier, sailor or airman has in coming back with a formed unit. I can give an example of a very unfortunate case from my own unit when a colour sergeant came back from mobilised service in Afghanistan. Because we are a specialist unit that does not meet for drill nights, there is no regular contact every Tuesday night where we can monitor colleagues who have recently returned, and we did not see much of him until one weekend when he was clearly not well. The effects of service in Afghanistan had clearly had a significant impact on him. I regret to say that that ended up with an incident in which he attempted to shoot a colleague with a weapon that he had brought back from Afghanistan, and he is now in prison. It was an awful incident. One wonders whether the same thing would have happened had that individual been serving with a regular unit and received the same levels of support that a regular soldier would have had.

Dan Byles: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's concern about soldiers who come back not as part of formed units. Does he agree that that points to a wider issue with the military covenant, whereby it is not simply a covenant between the Government and our armed forces but between the nation and our armed forces? Although there is talk of putting the Government's side of this bargain into law, the issue is also about an attitude in our nation as a whole. For example, many of our public sector bodies have policies whereby members of staff can have up to 14 days off work to be a school governor or to undertake trade union activity, yet many of those organisations, particularly NHS trusts, do not give similar time off to members of the reserve forces.

Mark Lancaster: That is a very valuable point. I was fortunate in that before I entered this House I worked for a family fireworks company, so I had no problem getting time off-certainly for six months of the year, anyway. My experience is that many employers are very good about allowing members of the reserve forces extra time off. However, the issue is certainly something that we should consider, perhaps when we debate this matter annually.
	Hon. Members have already referred to welfare for the families of regular forces-that is very important, and we should and must do more-but the families of reservists have particular problems because they tend not to live on a specific base. For any one specialist TA unit, those families can be spread across the land. We must do more to try to ensure that they have access to the same kinds of facilities as families of regular servicemen so that they get the support that they, too, vitally need.
	I want to deal with one more matter-the military police, as covered in clauses 3 to 6. People say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I have to confess that for a period of 18 months I was the second-in-command of 253 Provost Company Royal Military Police (Volunteers), based in Balham, south London. Given what I am about to say, I am not sure that the RMP's Provost Marshal will be very pleased that I had that experience. As I suggested to the Secretary of State earlier, the time has perhaps come when we should be thinking the unthinkable, and I encourage him to have a single police service for the armed forces. The three military police services already train together as a single organisation, going through one training school. The whole point of the 2006 Act was to harmonise much of military law. I see distinct advantages to this at a time when we are attempting to try to find savings within the Ministry of Defence, as having a single police service would save the costs involved in two Provost Marshal posts and all their connected staffs. The remaining Provost Marshal would then answer to the Chief of the Defence Staff instead of to the individual service chiefs, and he could be appointed by competition rather than by simple rotation.
	In reality, the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy have had little exposure to complex investigations into operational deaths because of the nature of operational service, which tends to be Army-based. Combining the special investigation branches would not only make savings on manpower, which is vital in terms of meeting the harmony guidelines of the Royal Military Police, who are particularly affected and overstretched, but encourage the maintenance of high standards through mutual understanding and experience. Currently, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary inspects the Royal Military Police but does not inspect the other two branches of the armed forces, and that situation might be improved by bringing the three branches together. I was invited by the Secretary of State to table amendments in Committee if I am selected to sit on it and. I think that we should explore this angle. It will be interesting to see what the cultural differences to which the Secretary of State referred are in reality.
	I am delighted to support the Bill this evening and will vote for it if there is a Division. I look forward to the Committee stage.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is a pleasure to follow such an informed speech from a person who is well qualified to deliver the points that he made. I am not from a military background, but am a great respecter of the military services, as we all are. I am a long-standing member of the Royal British Legion, but I do not know what that makes me.

Chris Bryant: Old.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, quite right. We all welcome the good work of the Royal British Legion.
	The Bill is important for many reasons. I am pleased that the need to bolster the military covenant is recognised. For some years, I have campaigned for widespread recognition of the welfare needs of veterans of the armed forces. The Bill makes integral amendments to the way in which our armed forces function, especially in disciplinary matters. I will focus on veterans' welfare, which is principally the concern of clause 2, and outline some suggestions on how that clause can be improved. If I have time, I shall speak briefly about clauses 9 to 11, which concentrate on preliminary testing for alcohol and drugs in the forces.
	The Bill marks a significant breakthrough in the championing of veterans' rights. For several years, I have worked to raise awareness in this place and beyond of the ordeal suffered by many vulnerable members of the armed forces after they are discharged. I published a paper in January 2010 that recommended increasing the support available to veterans of the armed forces. I currently have the privilege of sitting on an inquiry panel commissioned by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which aims to uncover why a high percentage of veterans enter the penal system. The inquiry is chaired by Sir John Nutting QC, and will make recommendations to Government later this year on how to prevent further offending and to make improvements. I chair a parliamentary group that comprises representatives of the justice trade unions, relevant third sector organisations, parliamentarians and concerned individuals, which looks into the problem of veterans in prison. That group will publish a list of recommendations on tackling this mounting problem in the first quarter of this year. I will give voice to a number of its recommendations this evening.
	The reasons why veterans are over-represented in the criminal justice system are complex, but the root cause is often the social estrangement that is experienced by susceptible veterans when they lose the ready-made support network of their Army colleagues. Clause 2 unlocks the opportunity to discuss how we can improve the way in which public services are administered to veterans. As I shall argue, improving and streamlining the way in which such services are offered to veterans could drastically reduce the number who fall into difficulties later in life.
	As is clear, work is being done to promote this issue. The fact that we are discussing a Bill on the Floor of the House that touches on this concern confirms the traction that it has gained over the past 12 or 18 months. I was gladdened to see that the matter had gripped the political mindset enough to become a major manifesto issue for all parties at the last general election. Although forces charities such as Help for Heroes have generated massive public support, the ordeal faced by some veterans was not widely acknowledged until relatively recently. That ordeal deserves our attention.
	It is perhaps easy for us to disregard how difficult the transition must be from life in a combat zone to civvy street. Although the training received by personnel during military service allows the majority to readjust to life after discharge, a growing but unspecified number drop out of the welfare system altogether, and become homeless, disfranchised from mainstream services and socially isolated. Education, further training and employment are difficult to access, and such opportunities are not automatically advertised to personnel on leaving the forces.
	Veterans are over-represented in NHS emergency waiting rooms and in road traffic accidents. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that veterans who have returned recently from a theatre of conflict are 50% more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than ordinary members of the public. That point bolsters the need for a careful examination of this matter.
	As a result of what can be an acute social rupture, an alarming number of such young men and women fall foul of the criminal justice system. That is often prompted by substance misuse and mental health problems. I was first alerted to this problem when I appeared as a barrister in the Crown courts of north Wales, Cheshire and beyond. In the space of about a fortnight, I saw a huge number of young people newly returned from Afghanistan who had committed very serious offences, for which there was no reasonable explanation. That made me think that something was wrong in the system, because those people were as rational as any of us, but my God, the things that they had been through recently would have rocked any of us.
	On 5 March 2008, I tabled a written question to the then Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, asking what percentage of the inmates in prison in England and Wales had served in either of the Gulf conflicts. I was informed that such information was not collected centrally. I have since found out that at no point is it compulsory to ask someone who is accused of a crime whether they have a service history. That practice must surely be rectified, and some police forces are collecting that information.

Bob Russell: With the hon. Gentleman's legal experience, is he really asking that one question be added when somebody is charged and the charge form is filled out?

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, I am. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about this matter. Kent police, Cheshire police, North Wales police and several other police forces have started to do that over the past 12 months, simply to scope the size of the problem and, hopefully, to come up with reasonable answers.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no prejudice should be drawn to the person who is accused because of that information and that it should be used purely for analytical reasons? It should not be used later in a judgment and nobody should be punished more because of their service background.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely with those comments, because we are all equal before the law. However, if taking that information helps to address what is a massive problem, it should be done. The probation service in Cheshire and north Wales is also doing that, and that is being led by ex-service people. No prejudice is intended at any stage.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important topic, and one that should not be taken lightly. I wonder whether he has read the analysis in the Defence Analytical Services and Advice report of the number of former service personnel who are in prison. It suggests not that they are over-represented, but the contrary.

Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister knows that there has been an argument about that because we do not know what the figures are.

Andrew Robathan: Yes, we do.

Elfyn Llwyd: What is the current figure?

Andrew Robathan: DASA's initial finding was that the figure was about 3%, but after it analysed everybody in prison who had said that they were formerly in the armed forces, it came up with a figure of approximately 3.5% of the prison population who were ex-services. In contrast, more than 7% of the general population have been in the services.

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, but if I remember rightly, the methodology of that particular report was somewhat questionable.  [Interruption.] May I finish my point? The reservists were not included, nor were people under 18 or women who had served in the Army. I believe that one other category of people was excluded-there were four such categories.

Kevan Jones: In support of the Minister, I wish to say that as the Minister who commissioned that research, I know that it was the most comprehensive ever done on the matter. It cross-referenced all the service records in all three services, in some cases going back to the late 1960s, with the records of the Ministry of Justice. Trying to rubbish it by making points about reservists, for example, is not helpful. It was a thorough piece of work, and I stand by what the Minister said about it.

Elfyn Llwyd: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and he knows that I have been discussing the matter with him for a long while. I am not rubbishing the report. All I am saying is that four distinct categories of service people were exempted from its scope. The first thing that the people conducting the report did was to ring Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers and ask him about his methodology. They were very much working in the dark.

Andrew Murrison: rose -

Kevan Jones: rose -

Elfyn Llwyd: I will give way to both hon. Members, but I am trying to construct an argument and do not want to make political points about the figures involved. I hope we can all agree that we have a huge problem. I give way first to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

Kevan Jones: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not helpful to rubbish the most thorough report on the facts of the matter. I have met Mr Fletcher on a number of occasions and know that he is a great self-publicist. He came up with the figure of 10% of the prison population being ex-armed forces, or at one time even 15%, on no evidence at all. That was not very helpful as part of the debate into which the hon. Gentleman has rightly put a lot of hard work.

Elfyn Llwyd: The way in which Mr Fletcher went about the matter was to e-mail every member of the probation service who was connected with prisons and ask them how many people on their books had been in the services. That was how he came up with his figures, but even within the latest Government figures of 3.5% or 4%, we see that in Dartmoor, for example, the figure was 17.5% in 2007.

Andrew Murrison: The Minister and the shadow Minister are right, but then so is the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). He is probably about to cite the figures for violent and sexual offenders, which show that there appears to be a greater likelihood that people with a service background will fall into that category. However, we would expect people with a service background to be less represented than others in the prison population, would we not? They are selected because they do not have a criminal record when they join up, and they are members of a disciplined service. That needs to be borne in mind when considering the figures.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree, and perhaps I should move away from the figures, because I cannot profess to know them precisely any more than anybody else can. All I am trying to say is that the problem is serious. The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that we would expect people who have been in the armed services to be more disciplined, and in most cases they are. However, there are worrying examples of people who, for almost inexplicable reasons, commit violent offences.
	I know of two cases intimately. The first is that of a person in a fish and chip queue in north Wales who felt that somebody behind him was invading his space. He reacted violently, because he had been trained to look after himself. Unfortunately, by the time he had finished the skirmish two or three minutes later, there was a person on the floor very badly injured and he went away for four years for grievous bodily harm.
	The second case is that of a young lad from my constituency who returned home from Helmand on a Wednesday and borrowed his father's car to go out on the Friday night. He drank far too much and had an accident, killing two passengers. It could be argued that he had been to hell and back in Helmand and felt that he could do such things with impunity. I am not running that young man down, and I am sad to see him where he is, but that is another example of which I am aware.

Chris Bryant: I am getting slightly nervous about the hon. Gentleman's argument, because-

Elfyn Llwyd: Well, you would, wouldn't you?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is chuntering away, but if he waits until I have made my point, he can respond afterwards.
	My concern is that just because there is a correlation between two sets of statistics that does not necessarily mean that there is a causation. In other words, just because there may be a higher or lower proportion of former members of the armed forces in prison, that does not necessarily mean that it was because they were in the armed forces that they went to prison.

Elfyn Llwyd: That may very well be, and we must also remember that the vast majority of those who are in prison come not from the Navy or the Air Force but from the Army, the infantry. There are socio-economic factors to be borne in mind and the equation is not simple, so the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard.
	I should like to leave aside the scale of the problem and consider what we can do to assist those who return. First, we must do everything we can to prevent veterans from falling into various problems after discharge. Secondly, I want measures to be taken to ensure that help and advice are available to everybody in the services who encounters problems, whether they be about substance misuse, mental health, housing, employment, money management, violent behaviour or anything else. We spend a lot of time training our young men and women up to the highest level before they go into harm's way. As I see it, we need to spend much more time and money on debriefing them and bringing them back into the less compressed atmosphere of civvy street. As we know, civvy street can be a hazardous environment for vulnerable returnees without assistance.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining that point about training. Does he accept that just as our armed forces are trained to the highest degree to do what they need to do in a military capacity, wherever possible training needs to be provided so that their skills are transferable? That will make them fully valued members of society in a professional capacity and as individuals.

Elfyn Llwyd: Absolutely right, and that is part and parcel of bringing people back into the civilian mainstream. There is no doubt that such training is useful, and we know that it often works.
	Clause 2 provides a commitment for a report to be placed before Parliament each year, which will deal with health care, education and housing. That is a welcome step, because the regulation of those services is a prerequisite for improving them. Surely, however, we need to do better than that. The Bill specifies that the responsibility for laying the report should lie with the Secretary of State. I wish no offence to him, and I trust that he will take none if I say that he has many other responsibilities already bestowed on him, which mean that laying the report will not be his highest priority. However, I hope that I am wrong.
	I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we should consider appointing a Minister for veterans' welfare with a cross-cutting responsibility, who could perhaps be situated in the Cabinet Office, because there are many facets to the problem. The report specified in clause 2 should go into far greater depth about how a background of military service might affect people in obtaining personal services. To education, housing and health care should be added welfare benefits, employment benefits and advice, reskilling, budgetary advice, debt management-SSAFA Forces Help and the Royal British Legion say that 60% of their cases concern debt management-alcohol and drug treatment and relationship skills. All personnel should have access to advice from voluntary organisations on all those issues, regardless of length of service, some months before leaving the forces. At present, when leaving the forces, the feeling among many veterans seems to be, When you're discharged, you're on your own. Regardless of whether that is the case, we need to intensify personnel's awareness of the support that is available for those who need it. Back-up advice in person and by telephone should also be made available for the first six months following discharge.
	I have briefly mentioned the prevalence of mental health problems among veterans. Due to time constraints, I cannot dedicate as much time to it as I should like. No compulsory mental health assessment is currently undergone before leaving the forces. I hope that that practice will soon change. There is a tremendous discrepancy between the way in which US and UK forces deal with the matter. Nobody can realistically plead for a veterans agency in the UK on the same scale as that in the States. The US has had to come to terms with the fall-out from the Vietnam war and other conflicts, and it set up such facilities in more benign financial times. However, when I took evidence with the Howard League in the US, senior veterans affairs Ministers told us that there was a presumption that 33% of returnees from conflict would suffer from either post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury.
	That figure is not accepted by anyone in the UK forces. The proportion is not even a tenth of that figure, according to the evidence that we have received from people in similar positions in the UK. There must be a problem somewhere because there is a huge discrepancy. Somebody said that PTSD could take up to 14 years to develop. Yes, it could: it could take 14 minutes or 14 years. We must tackle the problem, because we may be considering the tip of a painful iceberg, and the consequences could be long drawn out.
	Experts therefore demand making psychological assessment mandatory for all those leaving the forces, alongside a more general resettlement assessment and advice scheme. I hope that, if I am appointed to serve on the Select Committee, I can advocate making available more tailored support to veterans in the criminal justice system. I am a firm believer in all being equal before the law, but veterans' specific needs, and the way in which some initiatives might prevent reoffending in that community, must be recognised. Veterans' support officers should be appointed in every prison and probation service to ensure the streamlining of those initiatives. That has already started to happen. Statutory funding should be allocated to them as well as to veterans' support groups, which can provide unparalleled support in communities. Such groups normally have the benefit of comprising mainly veterans, who have an unmatched ability to relate to the experiences of other veterans.
	I am fast running out of time, but it remains for me to say that we must wake up to the alarming way in which personnel come to rely on alcohol and sometimes other substances as a defence mechanism. Perhaps it is perfectly understandable, but the so-called self-medication route is a huge misnomer. I have evidence to show that, regrettably, at some stages of Army life, alcohol is treated as a catalyst for unwinding. I am sure that many hon. Members have heard about the decompression in Cyprus, which comprises a weekend or week of drunkenness and brawling. It can be no coincidence that so many veterans leave active service displaying a dependence on alcohol. I need hardly say how quickly such a dependence, if left untreated, can feed into other habits, violent behaviour and crime. Henceforth, therefore, counselling on substance abuse must play a vital part in decompression and reintroducing personnel to civvy street.
	If we are to retain any hope of fewer veterans running into problems after leaving the forces, we must address some aspects of Army life, such as alcohol consumption as a means of coping with stress and adversity. Clauses 9 to 11 will intensify the regulation of personnel in that field and perhaps awaken them to the dangers of over-reliance on that drug. That is a welcome step in the right direction.

Dan Byles: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a common thread running through his speech is the problem of tracking and identifying veterans, whether by the police, the probation service or GPs? For example, many mental health issues arise because GPs do not necessarily know that someone is a veteran 10 years after that person has left the forces.  [Interruption.] I am married to a GP, and I can assure the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the system might work at the top, but it does not by the time things get to the bottom.  [Interruption.] The point that I intended to make before the sedentary interruptions from the Opposition Front Bench is that we in this place can help because there is a lot of support out there for veterans. How many hon. Members say to someone who is homeless or has other problems and comes to their surgery, Are you a veteran? If so, I can direct you to more places?

Elfyn Llwyd: Such work is being done by, for example, Kent police, to which I referred earlier, and probation services here and there. Very good work is undertaken in some prisons. That work is done by people who have an interest in assisting veterans, and we need to roll out good practice throughout the UK.
	It is wrong for anyone to hint that I am disparaging the services when I refer to alcohol or drugs. I am trying to consider matters realistically, not to insult members of the armed forces, for heaven's sake.

Kevan Jones: I agree with comments that have been made. However, when I was veterans Minister, we introduced tracking. We are obviously now waiting for the current Government to implement that.

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree. I give the shadow Minister credit because I have debated matters with him and he was assiduous in trying to address the problem, which is multifaceted.
	Military people are often proud-proud of their regiment and their work. They are not proud of their position if they suddenly become homeless and/or involved in crime, so sometimes they will not say that they were in the services because they are ashamed. That is another problem.
	We have had an opportunity to debate such matters today, and it is important to move forward to Committee, where we can explore different avenues. The Secretary of State said that he was open to, for example, extending the categories in clause 2. That is all well and good. Let us see whether we can explore that and come up with further matters that we need to examine.
	If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Committee, I hope I can amplify what I have said and strengthen the Bill as best I can so that we can honestly say, as Government members and ordinary Back-Bench politicians, that we are adhering to our part of the military covenant.

Andrew Murrison: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I particularly appreciate his remarks about clause 2 and health care. I am pleased to be able to say that the Government have accepted my report Fighting Fit on the mental health care of veterans. Part of it stated that we should indeed scrutinise people far more closely at the point when they depart from the services to ensure that we consider mental health. In my 18-year career as a medical officer in the Navy, we rarely did that. The matter was neglected, and I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted the report and that the armed forces will now assess people when they leave and before they become veterans so that we can take timely action when necessary.
	I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. In addition, in connection with clause 27-an obscure provision, which I suspect is largely uncontroversial-I am a member of the naval medical compassionate fund. I call it a potential benefit because one has to be deceased for any benefit to be obtained from it. Although that is ultimately inevitable, I hope that it will not happen during my time in this place.
	I pay tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have done so much for the military covenant and in raising its profile. Over the past 10 years or so, public support for our armed forces has increased. That is in large part because of the profile of the armed forces and, although it may not be fashionable to say so, I think we in this place ought to take a certain amount of credit for promoting the interests of the men and women of our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House do that, so this is not a partisan matter at all.
	However, I welcome this Bill as the next step in the process of ensuring that the military covenant is a key part of the way in which we deal with our armed forces, and not just now. It is very easy to do that now, as every night we see images on our television screens highlighting the plight of the men and women of our armed forces, and the excellent job they are doing and the professional manner in which they are doing it. The problem arises 10 or 15 years down the line when, God willing, we are living in a time when the armed forces are less high profile. In those circumstances, it will be very welcome to have an opportunity to assess, on an annual basis, how we are dealing with our servicemen and women, and, of course, with our veterans and service families.

Bob Stewart: One of the problems in respect of Help for Heroes is that we must deal not only with the current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have problems that go all the way back to the second world war, and we must put in place resources to look after the people who were involved then. Speaking personally, I had about 35 soldiers wounded on 6 December 1982. Those people require to be looked after, and two of them were paraplegics. I simply want to endorse my hon. Friend's point that we must look after all our veterans who have been hurt, not just the people who are now in the public eye from Afghanistan and Iraq and, perhaps, Kosovo and Bosnia. The issue goes back well beyond that, and let us also remember all those people who were hurt in Northern Ireland over many years.

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and I think the Government have recognised that need. One of my report's recommendations was that we should be more proactive in addressing our veteran population, and I am pleased that it has been accepted. Ministers recognise that we need to do more for veterans.
	Having just been nice to my Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps I might say that I disagree with them in one respect. Clause 2 is entitled Armed forces covenant report and I take exception to the term armed forces in that context. May I gently suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that it would be more appropriate simply to use the term military covenant? I say that because I think that term has had a certain amount of purchase. It is now understood by the general public. It is in the public domain, and the media understand it, and I think they would be somewhat confused if we were now to make this rather semantic change of using the term armed forces instead. To argue against myself, the word military excludes naval of course, but I think that in the public's mind military refers to the entirety of our armed forces. I do not want the value of the concept of the military covenant to be degraded in any way by a confusion over this title. That point might, perhaps, be considered in Committee, of which I hope very much my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) is successful in becoming a member-I wish him the best of luck in his endeavours in that respect. As he says, it will be fascinating to serve on the Committee, and I hope to talk a little more about that shortly.

Bob Russell: May I help my hon. Friend by pointing out that the Royal British Legion, which, of course, encompasses all the armed forces, refers to this concept as the military covenant, so it is on his side?

Andrew Murrison: I am very pleased. I am a member of the Warminster branch of the Royal British Legion and I rarely disagree with it. It has done a great job in its honour the covenant campaign. I am very pleased that it agrees with me, and I have no doubt that it will make representations to that effect.
	The Government have been spot-on in the way they have approached the covenant in this Bill. I have given a great deal of thought to what we should be doing in respect of the military covenant. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, we considered the matter at great length when in opposition, and the debate was always about the form in which it would find its way into legislation.
	At one end of the spectrum, we could be fairly didactic in what we mean by the military covenant. We could make it a bean-feast for lawyers, but that is completely against the spirit of the military covenant. It derives from Harry Levinson's work in the 1950s and '60s, in which he identified something called a psychological contract: a contract that was moral and that was understood, but that was not actually laid down in any form of written covenant, promise or undertaking. It is absolutely right that we should do nothing that would destroy the military covenant as part of that type of covenant. A couple of Members have mentioned the fact that this is not simply a deal between Government and officials and the rank-and-file. It also involves the general public. If we were to start putting it in a didactic contractual form, that would degrade that particular element of the deal that we understand by the term the military covenant.
	That seems to be the view of most commentators. At the Royal United Services Institute in June 2008, Christianne Tipping said:
	This debate must continue but it must not attempt to specify that which is incapable of specification-the psychological contract is more powerful than the legal one.
	I agree. It could be said that the military covenant is at the extreme end of the psychological contract spectrum, but it is, nevertheless, part of that deal, and it is important that we treat is as such.
	I welcome the annual report. The shadow Secretary of State was a little parsimonious in his praise for it. It will certainly maintain the profile of this issue. The devil is in the detail of course, in that the nature of the annual report is crucial-what it contains, how it is presented, and how it is debated. It is important that we know what the items in the report will be. We know what some of them will be, but this issue goes much further than that, of course. We must also address issues such as kit, the way we deal with the bereaved, and coroners courts. As has been mentioned, they have caused a great deal of grief over the past few years, and it would be extraordinary if they were not dealt with as part of this annual report.
	It is also important that we listen to the views of third parties. They will undoubtedly comment on this, and they are also very important in the implementation of the military covenant. Government must not do that alone. If they were to do so, they would completely ignore the general public and the voluntary sector, which are another element that must be party to the military covenant. It would therefore be interesting to know what involvement from third-sector partners is envisaged in this annual report.
	It is also important that the report is dovetailed with any other relevant reports there might be, such as from the service complaints commissioner, the continuous attitude survey or the external reference group. We need to know, as well, the extent to which personal functional standards subsequent to the armed forces overarching personnel strategy have been satisfied, and we need to incorporate the views of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.

Thomas Docherty: While I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about external scrutiny of the armed forces annual report, does he not agree that it is vital that the House itself scrutinises the work of the MOD? Does he also agree that every year after the report is published the Defence Committee should invite the Secretary of State to appear before it to face further scrutiny?

Andrew Murrison: I believe the Secretary of State does so in any case, but that is, of course, a matter for the Chairman of the Defence Committee, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman will be only too delighted to oblige.
	It is important that we thrash out what we mean by the covenant and the deal we are prepared to strike in recognition of it. On the one hand, it might be a no-disadvantage covenant, by which I mean that people will not be disadvantaged by their military service. On the other hand, might it mean a citizen-plus covenant, in that people will get a bit extra in recognition of the fact that they are serving or have served, or are related to someone who is serving or has served, in the armed forces? It is important that we do that.
	We could envisage the no-disadvantage covenant as being what we might aspire to at the moment, and the citizen-plus covenant as being the sort of model that applies in the United States. Certainly, the no-disadvantage covenant appears to be what people have in mind in things such as the service Command Paper. The term is used in that publication and also by Professor Hew Strachan in his recent report on the military covenant. Furthermore, of course, that covenant is a great deal more attainable, and we can take a closer view of what it actually means, if we use the benchmark of not disadvantaging people by virtue of their service. A citizen-plus covenant, however, is more difficult and invites calls of Me too!, in particular from other public servants who say that these days they are just as much on the front line. We could argue that point.
	It is important that the annual report contains an outcome measure. We need to know what we are looking at in order to make an assessment of whether the Government have done what they should be doing in honouring the military covenant. What do success and failure look like? It is important that the document is subject to rigorous independent scrutiny, not least by the Defence Committee. The report will be subject to the media spotlight and the analysis of third parties, so it needs to be a comprehensive and detailed document, unless it is simply to become, in the fullness of time and potentially under another Administration, simply a tick-box exercise.
	Over Christmas last year, my right hon. and hon. Friends were exercised by the air bridge between the UK and theatre. Perhaps that is a demonstration of a facet of the military covenant that could be covered in the annual report. I find to my great horror that similar problems arose this Christmas. It was a high-profile incident because it involved Katherine Jenkins and James Blunt and their failure to go to theatre to entertain the troops. Will the annual report cover theatre-specific elements of the disgruntlement of our armed forces? The Minister knows full well-we talked about this a great deal in opposition-that paramount in that list of disgruntlement tends to be things such as the air bridge and rest and recuperation.
	Organisations such as the British Limbless Ex Service Men's Association point out that people owe their allegiance to the nation, not to localities by and large, and that the covenant is a country covenant, not a county covenant. It is important, when considering elements of Professor Strachan's report, which is excellent in almost all respects-particularly his important point about the community covenant-that we recognise that people owe their allegiance nationally and expect the covenant to be honoured nationally as well. It would be a pity if we entered into some sort of postcode lottery in how we regard our duties to the men and women of our armed forces. I represent a constituency in a military part of the country, and as a community we are fully apprised of our duties towards the men and women of our armed forces. Some parts of the country, however-perhaps because men and women of our armed forces are less prominent there-are less inclined that way, so it is important, given that this is a national covenant, that we view this nationally, not parochially.
	It is also important to recognise that the covenant cuts both ways. It is a duty that the country and the Government owe to the military, but in turn the military owes a duty to the public and the Government, and it is important to assess-in my view, as part of this annual report-whether that duty is being satisfied in all respects. Everyone in this place admires our armed forces greatly-many of us have served in them-and I am second to nobody in my admiration for the men and women who serve this country so gallantly. However, there will be detractors and those who say, It is all very well talking up the military covenant, but we also need to understand that the public have expectations of the men and women of our armed forces. It is important to include in the report, therefore, if only to gainsay it, that we have to look at areas where the public have been let down, as well as at areas in which we have let down our armed forces. I put that down as a point for consideration in Committee.
	I turn to later clauses of the Bill that broadly speaking provide for the discipline elements. Clause 6 deals with the performance of the Ministry of Defence police. I have always had cordial relations with the MOD police, who work closely with their county colleagues, but, in a similar manner to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, one would have to ask all the time why we have a separate MOD police force. If we are going to consider in Committee the service police-our Front-Bench team made a generous offer to do so-perhaps we might also look at policing in the round within the MOD, which of course would include the MOD police. It is important that police forces benchmark their performance. The MOD police force is a particular force with a different profile; what it does is subtly different, and its arrest and conviction profiles are very different from those of county forces, and we have to ask all the time, particularly in an age when we are looking for efficiency savings, whether the current model is the correct one. I make no judgment on that, but it might be something that the Committee should look at and take a view on.
	Clause 5 deals with the appointment of provost marshals and asserts that only provost officers should be provost marshals, which struck me as slightly odd. At a time when we are looking for ways of making heads of police forces lay people, it seems a little odd-it sits uncomfortably with it-to insist in the Bill that in all circumstances provost marshals should be provost officers.
	I am always a little wary when it comes to extending anybody's powers-in this context, the powers of service police-unless I am faced with a good reason. That must be our starting premise. However, I do not have a good reason for why we need to extend the powers of service police. Although I am perfectly willing to take Ministers' words for it that it is necessary, we will have to tease out in Committee why we need to extend the powers in the way described.
	Clauses 9 to 11 and compulsory testing have been discussed at length by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and in an authoritative fashion that I cannot match. However, I start to get concerned about compulsory testing, particularly when it involves health care professionals. This is an ethical minefield and something that no doubt will need to be explored in Committee.

Bob Russell: When the Armed Forces Bill Committee considered this point three or four years ago, we were advised-if my memory is correct-that the equivalent of two infantry battalions are discharged each year for testing positive. Under those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the checking is an important requirement?

Andrew Murrison: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. If I develop my point, perhaps I can answer his concerns.
	We have compulsory drug testing at the moment, and it has been found to be broadly successful. My concern is about further testing at the say-so of the command and because it suspects that there might be a safety-critical issue. If instances can be cited in which safety criticality might have been affected by compulsory drug testing, we have a good case for doing this, but that case has to be made before we extend those powers. I would make a small suggestion: if we are to take those powers, perhaps we might like to consider them after 12 months, using a sunset clause, to ensure that they are still necessary. If they are not, we could consider removing them.
	It is not clear to me what the position of registered medical and nursing practitioners will be in all this. They operate within a disciplined service, and the rules can be quite challenging. However, looking at the Bill, I would say that were I in that position, I would be phoning up my defence society to ensure that I was not transgressing before co-operating with such a provision. I see that there is a get-out clause for medical practitioners. It all looks a bit woolly to me, but I suspect that it will be firmed up as the Bill proceeds.
	The Bill will further separate service police from the command, yet service police remain servicemen and remain within that command structure; indeed, they can exercise command appropriate to their rank. I am a little concerned about these people, because they are potentially remarkably powerful individuals. We need to bear that in mind when considering this matter. Part of the military covenant is about ensuring that we do the best by the men and women who serve this country; they should not be disadvantaged. On the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, it is important that we have a system that does not impose a greater legal restriction on that population than on the general public. If our system did impose that, we would not be honouring our commitment under the military covenant, because service personnel would most certainly be disadvantaged.
	I am concerned that there has been insufficient reflection on the possibility of combining our three sets of service police. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, there is potential mileage in combining the three. I sat through our consideration of a lot of the supplementary legislation to the Armed Forces Act 2006 and enjoyed it very much. However, it was clear to me that the systems of law were coming much closer together; indeed, one cannot get a cigarette paper between the three of them any more. Given those circumstances, the environment has changed and the case for combining those services into a tri-service provost service makes some sense.
	I conclude by welcoming the Bill, which is a culmination of a huge amount of work. It sets the right balance between a covenant that is unspoken, moral and psychological, and addressing the more obvious needs of the men and women who serve our armed forces very well. I shall certainly be supporting the Bill.

Chris Bryant: It is particularly appropriate that we are debating this Bill on the anniversary of the treaty of Versailles coming into operation in 1920 and the first meeting of the United Nations in London in 1946. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). When I was a Minister, I tried to do business with him in as friendly a way as possible in relation to the armed forces and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. His comments about the reserve forces were absolutely right, because it is true to say that the operations that this nation have been involved in over the past 15 years could not have been conducted without the support of the reserve forces, many of whom have, I suspect, had to go into theatre far more often than they or their employers expected when they signed up. We therefore owe them a debt of gratitude; those words are often bandied around this Chamber, but he made a very fair point about the importance of the reserve forces. I know from my constituency that they are an important part of the contribution that is made.
	The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was absolutely right to say that it would make more sense to stick with the term military covenant. I am often more pedantic than is good for my friendships-[Hon. Members: Surely not.] I thought that it was you heckling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as you have not had a drink yet, it probably was not. He is right to say that this phrase is now common currency and is used generally. I suppose that people who were being pedantic might say, That merely applies to the Army, but language changes and he is right to say that trying to reinvent a concept of an armed forces covenant is inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly when considering the way forward for this Bill.
	I particularly wanted to speak in this debate because this country's mining constituencies have produced many members of the armed forces. A large number of men and, increasingly in recent years, women have joined the Army, rather than the Navy or the Royal Air Force. When a survey was carried out in recent years of the preferred career of choice in mining constituencies or former mining constituencies, as mine must now be considered, the armed forces came out on top by far, followed by the police. I am sure that that is partly because of a tradition that there has been in many of these constituencies-there is a deep respect for the traditions of the armed forces, and people have wanted to follow in the footsteps of their fathers, grandfathers and so on-but it is also because of the economic circumstances.
	At its height, a single industry in my constituency employed 130,000 men working underground, and when it disappeared and a large number of people were, in effect, left on the scrap heap politically, many of those young men felt that the only career open to them was one in the armed forces. They have managed to take a great deal of pride from such a career. They have been able to give to the armed forces and the armed forces have been able to give back. I was delighted that the Ministry of Defence decided to open a combined cadet force in Treorchy comprehensive school. In the main, cadet forces had previously been attached only to public schools-fee-paying schools-so it was a great delight to see a new one start in Treorchy a few years ago.

Andrew Murrison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely on that. What does he make of comments by the National Union of Teachers to the effect that it was wrong for the previous Government-and, presumably, now for this Government-to encourage the involvement of uniformed men and women in our armed forces in areas of deprivation, where there is high unemployment, because they may be preying on people there? I utterly refute that assertion and I hope that he does too.

Chris Bryant: When I have heard those accusations, as I have when political opponents in my constituency have attacked me ferociously on these issues, I have wholly deprecated them. If we examine the work that the armed forces do in schools, we find that it is not about preying on young people who, in some sense, might not have other opportunities in life. Often such work is about giving people the confidence in themselves to go on to do something that has nothing to do with the armed forces. It is about giving them a structure in life, and a sense of discipline and opportunity, which is of value to the wider community. I know that some teachers at Treorchy comprehensive were sceptical about the combined cadet force coming to the school, but since it has been in place they have been entirely supportive and have found it to be an entirely beneficial operation.

Neil Carmichael: I agree about the importance of cadets. I visited my local Stonehouse platoon of the Army Cadet Force last week. It is fantastic and I would like to be sure that this Bill will provide the appropriate support to the cadets and the officers who train them-I am sure that it will.

Chris Bryant: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's point. I do not think that the Bill will do much directly for the cadets, except in so far as putting the military covenant in statute will make us focus on these issues more keenly. If there was one niggly point that I tried to make to the Labour Government when we were in power and would still make to this Government, it is that the sea cadets do not receive the amount of support that other cadet forces get directly from the relevant armed forces. That is a problem, especially because at the moment the sea cadets in the Rhondda spend almost all the money that they receive in support on just paying their insurance bill every year. I wonder whether we could ensure that the Ministry of Defence provides insurance support for all cadet operations. We could thereby release the sea cadets and other such forces to get on with their important work without having to spend all their time fundraising.

Charlie Elphicke: I could not agree more strongly with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The sea cadets are often the Cinderella of the cadets. Dover sea cadets are trying to buy the shed in which they train from the MOD but are having some difficulty. There is not the help that one would hope to see, so I echo and support his comments on the sea cadets.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful for those comments and I will pass them on to Minerva in the Rhondda.
	My other reason for wanting to take part in this debate is that Wales has a particular tradition of its own in relation to the armed forces, not only in successive wars but in producing a much higher quantity of young men and, increasingly, of young women to go into our armed forces than would be proportionate to its population. It is difficult, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, to get accurate statistics, but roughly 9% of the armed forces come from Welsh constituencies. That compares with just 5% of the UK population coming from Wales. There is, therefore, over-representation. That may in part be to do with the fact that we have higher levels of deprivation-multiple levels of deprivation -in certain parts of the country.
	One of the ironies is that little of the time that Welsh personnel spend in the armed forces will be spent in Wales. They might have to go to Sennybridge. They might spend a very cold, wet, hideous, horrible time on the mountain tops in training, but the likelihood is that the vast majority of their time will be spent, even when they are in the UK, not in Wales but elsewhere.
	I make a plea to the MOD and the Minister. I hope that he will be able to answer this later. When we are considering future bases in the UK, of course, as the Secretary of State said, the most important thing is ensuring the security of the realm. Every member of the armed forces would agree with that, but I argue that part of the military covenant is saying that deployment when at home, rather than when in theatre, should allow for a wider spread than is currently the case.
	We have not mentioned the armed forces parliamentary scheme, but it is an important element of the way parliamentarians obtain information from those who have served or are reservists and from others from other backgrounds, and ensure that that informs our debate. In my time in the scheme, nearly everyone I met in the armed forces-this is not a partisan point-came from a Labour constituency, but all the sites we visited were in Conservative constituencies. That is not because anyone has decided to put them in Conservative constituencies; it is just because of a series of historical flukes. I urge the Government, as they consider what to do about the redeployment from Germany, to think about whether there is a base, for example, at St Athan, that might be used to base Welsh troops in Wales. I say that not as someone who supports a separation of Welsh armed forces from British armed forces but as someone who wants to reinforce the Welsh armed forces.
	I believe that there are several elements to the covenant that are not mentioned in clause 2 but are equally important. We have debated one-equipment-at some length in the past few years, in particular because our troops are in theatre in Iraq and Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North said that he felt that the equipment he was given when he was last deployed was far more suitable and up to date than previously. He is right, but there is going to be a constant process of change.
	Likewise, ensuring that our troops have the most up to date, effective training possible is important. Several hon. Members have referred to whether it is possible to unify posts between the three services in relation to the military police. I argue that we need to go much further and extend that combination of training. Those who have had an opportunity to visit Shrivenham will know that bringing the training of officers in the Army, Air Force and Navy together in one place, which was at one point thought unthinkable-the idea that the Royal Navy would leave Greenwich was believed to be unthinkable-has brought enormous dividends to all three services. Notwithstanding the decision that seems to have been made in relation to St Athan and defence training, we need to be able to do more of our training on a shared forces basis because there is more that each of the services can learn from each other.
	The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has a long record of campaigning on veterans issues, for which I pay tribute to him. All too often, people think of veterans as people who served in the first or second world wars, but many of the veterans in my constituency are 25, 26 or 27 years of age and their service will not just be for the few years that they spent being paid by the armed forces; in terms of the psychological and physical issues that they have to deal with, their service will be for the whole of their lives. Not only will they be serving in that way, but their families will, too. He is right to point to the need for continuity of care beyond-in many cases far beyond-the day when someone goes into civvy street.
	I caution the hon. Gentleman, however, as I tried to do earlier-this crops up quite regularly in our debates-about the difference between correlation and causation. For example, it is often argued that couples who co-habit and have children are far more likely to split up than those who marry and have children. It is factually true. The question is: is that because they got married, or because they are the kind of people who felt differently about the institution of marriage in the first place? In other words, is there correlation between these statistics, or is there causation?
	That is where we need to be precise in relation to the ongoing care of those in the armed forces. Many of the young people who join the armed forces from the Rhondda go in with many of the problems that they will leave with. They go in, as we know, with lower levels of literacy, which is why the armed forces in recent years have had to do much more to ensure that our troops have a high level of literacy. Some of them will have difficulties with other educational issues that need to be addressed.
	The point is that it is not necessarily because those people were in the armed forces that some of the problems follow. Where the problem is because they were in the armed forces-perhaps because their training was so effective that they do not realise the lethal nature of the punch that they could deliver compared with someone else-it is all the more important that the MOD and the whole of society take action to ensure that young people, as they go into the armed forces and see through their years in service, and when they leave, have the full support and training that they need.
	I know that many others want to take part in the debate and I do not want to delay others from speaking any further, but I hope that the Minister will respond on the issue of Welsh troops being based in Wales because it is one of the ways that we can ensure that there is continuity for young people who are removed from the Rhondda to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, or who spend all their service career living in Wiltshire. When they are finished, they come back to the Rhondda-

James Gray: As Conservatives.

Chris Bryant: I am not going to respond to that, although the hon. Gentleman is enticing.
	By that uprooting, those service personnel are not given a proper chance when they go back. The key element is ensuring that that matter is addressed not just by the MOD, but by the Welsh Assembly Government.

Mark Menzies: It is a great honour to take part in the debate. I do so not with the great knowledge of some hon. Members who have contributed today. I have not given the service that they have given. However, I am the Member of Parliament for the Weeton army barracks, and that makes me incredibly proud of the men and women who serve there. It is currently home to 1st Battalion the Royal Green Jackets and the Kings Division Normandy. On visits to the barracks, one sees and hears first-hand the people who serve our nation with great distinction.
	Before I expand on that, I want to pick up on comments from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Two key points were made. First, we should not seek to ignore the work that is put in to support the psychiatric services that support those who come back from the armed forces. Secondly, we should not fail to understand the importance of getting the Army into schools and of engaging with young people at a young age. Communities such as that in Rhondda and in the area that I originally come from are great respecters of authority and tradition and the British armed forces are a great example of that. It would be a great shame if, as a result of union activity or the activity of other people who have an axe to grind, we stopped allowing our armed forces into our schools to engage with young people.
	I want to focus on clause 2 and the issues to do with welfare. When I visited Weeton Army barracks, one thing that gave me great encouragement was the existence of the Sure Start centre. Let us not forget that when one is dealing with young children-particularly very young children-one of the most important things in their lives is stability and continuity, as well as support for their parents when the father is serving in the armed forces overseas. I went away that day encouraged by the work of the Sure Start centre and I hope that when we consider some of the Bill's provisions the work done by Sure Start centres on Army bases-I am bothered not about what we call them, but about what they do -continues.
	The other thing I took away from that visit was the importance of Commonwealth soldiers. We tend to think of members of the armed forces as being from our communities, but in many cases the armed forces-and in some cases a significant number of them-are made up of men and women from other corners of the globe. A number of armed forces on Weeton Army barracks are from Fiji. Forgive me, as I do not have the full details on this point, which is one about which I want to write to the Minister, but one thing that concerned to me was the issue of visas and the payment for visas for the wives of Fijian soldiers. The figure I left with in my mind was £700 and if we are asking the wives of Fijian soldiers to pay £700 to be in this country and to be with their husbands, who are serving our country, that makes me feel deeply uneasy. Immigration is another matter, but if we can be hospitable to other people then, my goodness, we need to be hospitable to the wives of Commonwealth soldiers. I hope we can consider that at some point- [ Interruption. ] Sorry, the hon. Member for Rhondda corrects me: British overseas territory soldiers.
	Weeton Army barracks have an excellent school, albeit an old one. Weeton can be no different from many other bases up and down the country. At a time of financial constraint, we must ensure that local authorities do not take the easy option and cut funding or do not invest in new buildings for schools located on Army barracks or other military facilities in favour of others that might be more high profile. The school at a barracks is attended not just by children from the base but by children from the local community. That is an excellent way in which people from the non-military community can integrate and get a good understanding of military service.
	Finally, as regards ensuring that the military covenant is maintained, a political aspect that we always used to talk about was the quality of housing. It is not just about the availability of good-quality housing but about ensuring that those homes are sufficiently maintained and are maintained in a speedy and timely manner. I have had representations from members of the armed forces that involve stories that we would not tolerate for any of our constituents in social housing or in properties owned by a private sector landlord. However, we seem to think that it is in some way acceptable for members of the armed forces. We must ensure that those homes are maintained and, when they are not maintained, that people are quickly held to account.
	I will be proud and happy to support the Bill, just as I am proud to support the members of the armed forces who serve and who have served in the past in my constituency.

Thomas Docherty: May I begin, Mr Deputy Speaker, by wishing you and the whole House a very happy new year?  [ Interruption. ] I am just disappointed that it is Opposition Members who have all the festive cheer at this time of year-[Hon. Members: Where are they?] I am pleased to see so many Conservative Members in the Chamber today; they obviously were not encouraged to go to Oldham to support the Lib Dem candidate in that by-election.
	I pay tribute to our armed forces, who continue to serve overseas, often in difficult circumstances. Like many other Members on both sides of the House, I have had constituents who have tragically lost their lives in the service of the country. I know that their sacrifice will never be forgotten.
	I have both a dockyard and a naval base, HMS Caledonia, in my constituency. I have a particular interest in this subject as so many people have such a long and proud tradition of serving our nation in the armed forces. Although the Opposition obviously support the principles of the Bill-as the Secretary of State said, it is in some ways a technical requirement to maintain our armed forces-I and, I am sure, other colleagues have some specific concerns that are as much to do with what is missing from the Bill as what is in it.
	First, let me turn to the issue of the armed forces charter or covenant, or the military covenant, depending on one's viewpoint. As some hon. Members might recall, late last year I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on an armed forces charter. Although I do not intend to rehearse all those arguments, I said at the time that Opposition Members share the concerns of the Royal British Legion that the Ministry of Defence needs to do more to introduce more effective prevention and treatment strategies to tackle mental health problems, binge drinking and drug abuse. Both the Opposition and the legion, as well as other service and veteran charities, are deeply concerned that of the 50,000 service personnel homes in the United Kingdom, two thirds do not meet the MOD's standards for family accommodation. Under the spending outlined by Ministers, it will take 20 years to bring all the family accommodation up to an acceptable high standard.

Louise Bagshawe: Is that shameful legacy not in fact the legacy of the hon. Gentleman's Government, and are this Government not taking steps to put that right?

Thomas Docherty: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments, which allow me to point out that under the previous Labour Government, 75,000 single bed spaces were brought up to-or had funding put in place to bring them up to-standard.

Louise Bagshawe: In 13 years?

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful for the opportunity provided by her sedentary comment to point out to her that we achieved a great deal more than that in terms of armed forces standards. It is disappointing that that level of funding has not been continued by the current Government.

Bob Russell: I wonder whether I might help the hon. Gentleman by being devil's advocate and pointing out that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised the Ministry of Defence housing through Annington Homes. That is the root cause and this Government need to do more to put right what the last Labour Government failed to do.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who, as ever, shows his fancy footwork, blaming both his Government and the previous Conservative Government. I must agree that his Government are not doing enough to support housing.
	Opposition Members are deeply concerned that although the Ministry of Defence is happy to place new onuses on local authorities and the NHS, the one group of people that should not have statutory responsibilities according to the MOD is, funnily enough, the MOD. By that rather large omission, clause 2, which covers the charter, is in effect toothless. The organisation that, more than any other, has responsibility for the welfare of our service personnel, their families and our veterans is, of course, the MOD. When he replies to the debate later this evening, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) will assure Labour Members that the MOD will re-examine that glaring omission.
	The hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) and others often accuse Labour Members of not coming up with funding solutions to meet such commitments. I will indulge her by providing a simple example of where we can find more than £100 million, which could be put into accommodation for service personnel. According to the MOD, we spend-before she jumps to her feet, I accept that the previous Government did not do enough to tackle this issue-£110 million on private school fees for the children of service personnel. Almost half that money-some 40%-goes to officers in the top ranks of lieutenant-colonel and above, who are effectively the top brass, while only 10% goes to the ranks of staff sergeant and below. It is, in effect, a subsidy for public schools.

Andrew Robathan: I want to shoot this canard, fox or whatever you like. People in junior ranks, both officers and non-commissioned officers, tend to be younger. Guess what? They do not have children who want to go to such schools. In fact, there are private soldiers whose children go to private schools, and there are junior officers whose children go to private schools. They are not at home, and they need the continuity of education provided by that allowance.

Thomas Docherty: I thank the Minister for spelling out his position. This evening, I have tabled a written question to clarify how many of the service personnel who receive the £110 million subsidy-the schools get the money-are serving overseas. One of our concerns is that those officers are on not two or three-year furloughs overseas but six-month deployments. The MOD is, in effect, providing a ring-fenced sum of money for public schools, which is disappointing at a time when we are seeing job losses in both the armed forces themselves and in companies such as British Aerospace. When the MOD made cuts, it did not take a penny out of the continuity of education allowance, and that decision should be re-examined.

Dan Byles: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when soldiers return to the UK after perhaps two years, their children should move schools, and that when, two years later, they are posted overseas again or to a different part of the country, their children should return to boarding school? That does not make sense.

Thomas Docherty: I shall clear that up before giving way to the Minister: if the argument for spending £110 million a year on public schools is based on soldiers being posted for six months to Afghanistan before returning to Britain, it is not an acceptable use of public money.

Andrew Robathan: As the hon. Gentleman may know, we are tightening up the rules on the continuity of education allowance. If he would like to come along to the MOD and meet them, I can introduce him to people who will tell him, as they tell me, that their children have changed schools as many as four times in five years, which is not good for continuity of education or for keeping good personnel in the armed forces.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Minister for his offer to meet me to discuss the matter outside the House, which I shall certainly take up. I will not labour the point for much longer, because other hon. Members want to speak. As we move to withdrawing troops from Germany in 2015-perhaps it will be slightly later, if the MOD does not get its timetable right-it is the right time to consider scrapping or phasing out the continuity of education allowance.

James Gray: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what effect that would have on the excellent Queen Victoria school in Dunblane, which is close to his constituency and located in my home town? It is a private boarding school for the sons and daughters of other ranks in all three services.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that school. I have specifically referred to the continuity of education allowance. As the Minister will confirm, that school and its sister school in Dover-if the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is listening, I am sure that he will confirm this-are directly funded by the MOD. That funding does not come through the continuity of education allowance.

Oliver Colvile: I represent a naval port. Families are moved from Plymouth to Portsmouth, Faslane or Rosyth. It is difficult for those families to get their children into schools, because they may be moved in July, by which time the local authority has already made its decision. The issue is about providing continuity, safeguards and security for those children's education. If those children are moved on a regular basis and do not get into the right school, it can make life very difficult. I am the son of a sailor, and my education was moved around during the course of my life. We must ensure that children have the opportunity to go to school with continuity in order to safeguard their futures.

Thomas Docherty: I seek further clarification, because the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. The purpose of the continuity of education allowance is to help those personnel who are serving overseas, but he has said that it applies to personnel who serve in different parts of the United Kingdom. He has mentioned Rosyth, and we have some excellent schools in West Fife. There would be no problem with the children of personnel getting into some of our excellent schools, and I am happy to recommend some of them to him.

Dan Byles: I will put the matter in context for the hon. Gentleman. In my nine years of service, I was posted to Colchester, Kosovo, Catterick, London, Bosnia and Tidworth-six locations in nine years. People do not know whether they will be posted overseas. The posting order sometimes gives them as little as a month's notice of where their next posting might be-if they are lucky, they might get two or three months' notice. The issue is about not only being posted overseas, but about having a completely disjointed lifestyle.

Thomas Docherty: It is strange that Conservative Members are unwilling to draw a comparison with the private sector. In my eight years in the private sector, I lived in a number of locations. I know many people who work in the private sector-and, indeed, in the public sector-who have to move home every two or three years. It is regrettable that as a result of some of the decisions that have been made, that trend will increase. It is unusual to hear Conservative Members say that moving home and uprooting one's family is not part and parcel of a modern career path. I accept the point about interrupting the education of those pupils who currently receive the continuity of education allowance. That is why we need to consider phasing out the scheme, so that no child who is currently in receipt of it is adversely affected.
	I want to move on to an issue that I am disappointed has not made it into the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will reflect on this point in the days before the Select Committee begins its deliberations. The issue concerns ensuring proper scrutiny and a proper process for base closures. Labour Members and many Government Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), have long held the view that the correct order of decision making on military matters begins with determining our national security threats and foreign policy objectives. We should then determine the defence postures needed to meet those objectives and threats, and then make decisions on the basing, equipment and personnel levels required to meet those defence postures. After that, we should decide how best to structure the funding.

James Gray: I, too, feel strongly about this matter because RAF Lyneham in my constituency is threatened, but will the hon. Gentleman explain which aspect of the Bill has any bearing whatever on the basing considerations?

Thomas Docherty: Like other Opposition Members, I would like a clause on this issue to be inserted into the Bill. As the Secretary of State has said, the Bill presents an opportunity to legislate on the armed forces and that opportunity comes around about once every five years. As he said, this is the Ministry of Defence's opportunity for a Christmas tree Bill, to use American parlance, on which to hang additional amendments and clauses that do not necessarily fall within the strict area of military discipline. That is what Opposition Members seek.
	I have just outlined the usual process and it is disappointing that the coalition has turned that process on its head with the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury telling the Secretary of State for Defence, This is your budget: this is all you are going to get-go and make it work, rather than taking any real cognisance of the vital national security role. That is why we are in the absurd situation of having aircraft carriers with no aircraft. Even if the French get their aircraft carrier to work, we will go a decade without any fast jets because of the folly of Treasury decisions. That has led to communities facing a great deal of uncertainty regarding base closures. Having attended some of last year's debates in the House-as did the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)-I have heard the concerns felt by communities around the country about the Government's process of determining base closures.
	Last year, I was fortunate enough to go to the United States with the British-American Parliamentary Group and I strongly commend that scheme to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not had the chance to get involved in it yet, because it gave us the chance to meet, among others, representatives of the Pentagon, the Department of State and the National Security Council. On that trip I learned that the US has a legislative process for base closures. With such a system, we would not get the current absurd situation in which the Secretary of State for Defence has said that base closures would be a purely strategic defence matter, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that they would be motivated by socio-economic matters and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both told us that they will be driven by financial needs. Such confusion does not arise in the US because there is a clear process and military personnel have at least two years' notice before any base may be closed.
	The base realignment and closure process, as it is officially known, was set up in the late 1980s by the Reagan Administration to act as an arbiter between the Department of Defence, congressional leaders, individual Congressmen and communities who were understandably fighting-I hope hon. Members will pardon the pun-tooth and nail for each base. Going back to the question of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire about why this issue should be part of the Armed Forces Bill, it is because such a change would require an Act of Parliament in the same way that it required an act of Congress in the US. The BRAC process begins with a threat assessment.

James Gray: I am sorry to come back to this issue, but as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, perhaps it is reasonable for me to do so. The long title of the Bill shows that it deals with very specific issues to do with discipline, civilian courts, the Naval Medical Compassionate Fund Act 1915 and a number of other matters, but under none of the headings in the long title could the basing debate be considered. If it is in order to discuss this issue, I feel a lengthy speech on RAF Lyneham coming up.

Thomas Docherty: The hon. Gentleman is an excellent orator so we will all look forward to his speech, which I am sure will not feel lengthy to anyone. We are guided by the Clerks and the advice that we have received is that it will be entirely appropriate for us to table additional clauses in Committee. I am sure that the Clerks will advise hon. Members on the process for amending the long title of the Bill if that is necessary and practical.
	I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall press on. The independent commission in the US is appointed by the President in consultation with members on both sides of the congressional aisle-I understand that there are two nominations from the Democrats and two from the Republicans and that they are traditionally former service chiefs. The commission carries out a very transparent process in which it is given a list of bases and works according to the criteria set out in law. The highest criterion is defence-I am sure that Members on both sides would agree that that is appropriate-but the commission is allowed to take into account, as a secondary consideration, factors such as the economic impact of closure on local communities. Regional public meetings are held to give the public an opportunity to give their input into the process. When the commission has completed its work, it forwards its recommendations to the President who can accept the proposal as a whole or simply reject it. If the President accepts the proposal, it is forwarded to Congress, which then has a debate and what is called a straight up-and-down vote on the list in its entirety. That is important because it prevents cherry-picking and means that the strategic objective of securing the best base system for the nation is not lost.
	I conclude by asking the Minister to answer two questions in his response. First, he will be aware that many of the functions of supporting veterans fall on the devolved Administrations. What discussions between the devolved Governments and the Ministry of Defence have taken place and will take place as the Bill goes forward on how to ensure that there is no difference of interpretation or implementation between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he clarify whether, given the comments of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and others, it is technically in order for Members to seek to add new clauses in Committee, without prejudicing what the MOD's thinking on that matter might be?

Bob Russell: At the outset, let me place on record my admiration for and appreciation of soldiers from the 16 Air Assault Brigade, approximately 3,000 of whom from the Colchester garrison are currently deployed in southern Afghanistan. I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State for their opening words and I also thank the Secretary of State for his recent visit to Camp Bastion and his generous words of support there. I pay tribute to the families back in Colchester and around the country and to the rear party who do important work but are seldom mentioned. So, I thank the rear party and the men and women of our armed forces, including of 16 Air Assault Brigade, and I mention especially the regimental band of the Parachute Regiment who spent Christmas and the new year in southern Afghanistan.
	The previous Government can be congratulated on many good things that they did, most notably for veterans, partly by giving them a profile that did not exist before. The introduction of Veterans day and the veterans badge have been well received right across the United Kingdom. We have already accepted the principle of the veterans badge, but there is one additional thing that I ask the coalition Government to take forward: the award of an armed forces medal. Not everybody who joins Her Majesty's armed forces is deployed to a theatre where a medal will be awarded, and we should recognise that there are important members of Her Majesty's armed forces who do not necessarily get a combat medal.

Bob Stewart: But that is the whole point of the medals: they are awarded for service in an operational theatre. We do not want to make this about having a Mickey Mouse parade on one's chest. The reason why a medal is awarded is that someone has served a set time in an operational theatre. Let us not make us glorified toy soldiers.

Bob Russell: Putting aside the hon. Gentleman's closing sentence, I am aware of the counter-argument, but there is a strong argument the other way, too. We respect all who serve in Her Majesty's armed forces; that is what the veterans badge is about, but it is not quite the same. I do not qualify either way; I merely make the point on behalf of those who have raised the matter.
	Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am the only Member present who served on the last Armed Forces Bill Committee, and I was present when that Bill was debated on the Floor of the House, too. It has served the country well, and it is right that we should now revise it. As to whether I will be on the new Bill Committee, we will have to wait and see.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned the quality of housing for families, but the issue of single persons' accommodation has not been raised. Colchester is blessed with the most modern barracks in the country, Merville barracks. I disagree fundamentally with the way in which the last Government used a private finance initiative to fund those barracks, because over time it will be far more expensive than using traditional methods of funding public assets. However, the barracks are the benchmark for all our military accommodation for single people.
	There are many ways in which family accommodation around the country leaves a lot to be desired. I hope that the coalition Government, notwithstanding the financial legacy that the Labour Government bequeathed us, will realise that if we want the best from the best armed forces in the world, we have to provide them with accommodation, and particularly family accommodation, that is fit for purpose.
	I ask the Minister to define what is meant by education in the Bill. Is it education of the serving man or woman, education of the children of military personnel, or education in the round? I genuinely do not know the answer. In the previous Parliament, the Defence Committee reported on service children's education. The Armed Forces Bill Committee, when constituted, may want to look back and see what that report said, because the issue is not just the education of our serving military, though that is obviously important-increasingly important, sad to say-but the education of their children.
	I mentioned war widows and the fact that they have to pay tax on their pension. I understand from one of the young war widows in my constituency that it is not described as a war widow's pension. When she has need to mention the pension, the documents do not say that she is a war widow. That, to her, is very important, because her husband lost his life in Afghanistan nearly three years ago. I cannot remember what the description is, but it is not a war widow's pension. It may be just a small tweaking of words that is needed, but it is important.
	I pay tribute to the reservists, whom Members have mentioned. We need to see whether we can somehow inject that issue into the Armed Forces Bill. As has been said, reservists are increasingly an important, integral part of service. When I went to Iraq as a member of the previous Armed Forces Bill Committee, we certainly saw a lot of reservists, and I have also seen them in my visits to Afghanistan. They have a very important part to play.
	Mention has been made of the cadets. Last year was the 150th anniversary of the Army cadets. Reference has been made to the fact that sea cadets are not funded on the same basis as the Army and air cadets. Perhaps we can look at that in Committee.
	Just as a throwaway line, on the overseas territories and the Commonwealth-I asked a parliamentary question on this-please understand that nearly 10% of the British Army is not from the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth obviously accounts for most of that figure, but other nations around the world have citizens serving in Her Majesty's armed forces.

Simon Hart: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's commendation of reservists, as an ex-reservist myself. Does he have a view about the people who enable reservists to take part in all the activity that we now require them to take part in? When I was a member of the Territorial Army, the most dangerous place we ever went was Warminster, but things are now very different, and I suggest that when we commend soldiers, we should also commend those people, often from quite small businesses, who enable them to undertake their duty on our behalf.

Bob Russell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Frequently, without the understanding and support of the employer as regards training and deployment, that could not happen. He is right to draw my attention and that of the House to that point, and I am more than happy to put on record our appreciation of the employers who enable that to happen.
	The Bill refers to the Ministry of Defence police. At the commencement of the last Labour Government, there were approximately 30 members of Ministry of Defence police serving on the Colchester garrison lands and properties; there are now three. I have been to see Ministers about that, and have raised the issue in debates time and again, but unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall decided that Colchester garrison now needs only three Ministry of Defence police officers where, 13 years ago, there were 30. That has had a serious impact, and I have flagged this up in the past in Committee, as the officials who were present, and  Hansard, will confirm.
	Ministry of Defence housing stock was reduced, and houses were sold off and became part of housing for the civilian population. It is a fact that Army family housing has a military, self-imposed discipline, which is sadly not reflected in civilian housing. In Colchester, the former Army housing estates increasingly house private citizens, if I may use that term, who, like any other civilians, have late-night parties and a social life that is not the same as the self-imposed discipline of military families. Over the past two or three years, I have picked up complaints from Army families who say that their lifestyle is being impacted on by the civilian population. If the Ministry of Defence police were there, that would help. They should have been replaced by the Essex constabulary, but with the best will in the world, the Essex constabulary do not have 27 spare police officers to replace the 27 MOD police officers. There has therefore been a huge reduction in policing, and I hope that we can discuss that issue in great detail in Committee.

Russell Brown: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the cost of an MOD officer compared to the cost of an Essex police officer?

Bob Russell: That is a good question. I do not know the answer, but it is the sort of detail that we should discuss in Committee.
	I am talking about a huge reduction in security for the Army families, which is not good. Fortunately, we are living in more peaceful times in the United Kingdom. At the time of the IRA troubles, like any other military town we needed all the security that was going.

Thomas Docherty: My understanding is that like the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the terms of operation and the rights of the MOD police are much more limited than those of the civilian police forces. Is that correct?

Bob Russell: No, that is incorrect. A Ministry of Defence police officer has marginally more powers than an ordinary police officer because he is a police officer plus. He has the military addition. We must not get confused with the red caps. In Colchester we now have a combined police station, with the Royal Military Police-the red caps-the Ministry of Defence police and the Essex constabulary all working out of one police station. MOD police officers-as  Private Eye calls them, MOD Plod-are police officers plus, because they are also part of the garrison Army family.
	Until the last general election, I was one of three parliamentary advisers to the Royal British Legion. As the Labour and Conservative Members who advised it stood down at the election, it decided to end that arrangement. It now has other ways of bringing matters before Parliament. I mention that because reference has been made to the military covenant. Early-day motion 1 in November 2007 was tabled by myself and was eventually signed by 203 Members throughout the House, 17 of whom are now Ministers-four are in the Cabinet, and three are Defence Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is on the Treasury Bench. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, also signed it, along with Mr Speaker, who was not the Speaker then.
	Alongside the Royal British Legion, which does valiant work, we have the Army Benevolent Fund, or ABF The Soldiers Charity, as it likes to be called; Veterans Aid, one of the smaller specialist charities, if I may use that term, which does fantastic work for former military personnel who are at the bottom of the pile and is based down the road in Victoria; Combat Stress; and numerous military, regimental and other charities. We need to get their recommendations, advice and views when we consider welfare and so on. Help For Heroes has taken off. I am pleased to say that one of its first rehabilitation centres, if not the first, will be in Colchester.
	I suggest to the Committee that it visit the Military Corrective Training Centre in Colchester, which takes people from all the services who have been given a custodial sentence and whom the Army, Navy and Air Force wish to have return to the service. The centre is almost like a finishing school. The vast majority of those who go there are Army, it must be said, and the vast majority of those who graduate from it return to their units as better soldiers, sailors or airmen as a consequence. The centre also deals with those who have been given a military sentence before they are discharged. I mention that not because I am advocating that our civilian prisons should become military-far from it; I was very much against a previous Government's boot camp policy-but because I am sure the civilian Prison Service could benefit from the education and training provided by MCTC.
	I conclude by commending the Bill. The debate has been constructive on both sides of the House. There will be differences, but I am sure of the unity of purpose in the Chamber for our armed forces. I hope the Bill will go forward and eventually become an Act.

James Gray: The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), as is his wont, added considerably to what has been a long and interesting debate so far this evening, predominantly on clause 2 and the military covenant. By reference to Colchester, the hon. Gentleman made a useful contribution to the debate.
	Although the rest of the Bill is extremely important and our armed services would not exist without it, there are others much better qualified than I who will no doubt address the other parts of the Bill later in the debate and in Committee. Therefore I, too, will focus most of my attention on the military covenant.
	It is a rather frightening and humbling experience in this place to follow speakers who know so much more about the subject than oneself. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), both of whom know more about the military covenant than most other Members in the Chamber today will ever find out. I pay tribute to their contributions.
	I will not seek to equal that or compete with it. I shall focus on the concept of the covenant, why it is there, what it does, and in particular, what the Bill does to strengthen it. The covenant has, of course, existed for many years. I speak from two personal areas of experience. The first is as chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces. Several of my co-chairmen and vice-chairmen are present in the Chamber this evening. It is a humbling experience to see each of the brigades returning from Afghanistan marching through Carriage Gates, arriving at the east door of Westminster Hall and going down to the Terrace for a reception.
	At the most recent event, when 4 Mechanised Brigade arrived, I was particularly struck by one soldier wearing his combat kit cut off where his boxer shorts would be. It was only afterwards that I discovered the reason. He was marching in the column. He was not a casualty. The reason why he had that rather unusual form of military dress was that the third degree burns to his legs were so severe that he was unable to take even the light cotton of desert combats against the skin. None the less, he was determined to march in with the rest of them. I pay tribute to such people. Very few of those in the Chamber tonight could compete with that level of true heroism.
	I say the same thing about many of the people whom I meet week by week and day by day in the high street of Wootton Bassett. Large numbers of the regiments and the fallen soldiers' families come to our events in Wootton Bassett, which are held twice a week. The heroism that they show and the bravery and pride that the families show about their close relative who has been killed in Afghanistan is a humbling experience.
	With that as background, we have to think about what we as a nation and as a Parliament are doing with regard to our armed services. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire asked whether the military covenant was about improving the lot of soldiers by comparison with other citizens, or whether it was about removing the disadvantage suffered by soldiers. If somebody has to serve under the most appalling privations, as they do in Afghanistan and elsewhere; if somebody has to close the Queen's enemy, risk being killed by them or, even worse, have to kill them, not something that any of us would want to do; if somebody has to risk the most appalling injuries, to which some of those whom we have seen visit Parliament over the years stand tribute; and if somebody has to suffer as our soldiers suffer, we as a nation owe them more than we owe other public servants.
	Of course, public servants such as firemen and all sort of people do useful things, but, when we require a person by his job to do the things that we require our soldiers to do, we owe them more than we owe any other public servant. So, with the military covenant, we ought to seek not just to resolve the disadvantages that our soldiers face, but to add to the covenant the idea of improved citizenship, as I think my hon. Friend called it.
	A number of us in the Chamber have been out to Afghanistan, and I was there not so long ago with the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell). When one says to soldiers and, come to that, sailors and airmen, What sort of things are you worried about? What are your problems here on the very front line? Are you worried about the kit?, the answer by and large is, No, we are not. The kit that we are issued with now is second to none in the world. When one asks, Are you worried about the Taliban, being shot at, being deployed, being hungry, being cold or the desert conditions?, one finds that they are not concerned about that at all. Those of us who come to this place and say that somehow or other our soldiers are worried about that sort of thing are wrong. When one meets someone on the very front line and asks, What is it you are most worried about in your service career?, they say, I am worried about the family back at home, the housing, my pay and conditions and what I am going to do after I have left the Army. They are not worried about the ordinary, run-of-the-mill occupation of being a soldier, because they signed up. They recognise the dangers of being shot at, killed, serving in awful conditions and all those things. What they do not recognise are the appalling consequences for their marriages, families and lives after they have left the services.
	Earlier in the debate, there was a rather sterile, academic and statistical discussion of whether a disproportionate number of soldiers find themselves imprisoned or suffer from drug or drink abuse after they have left the services. Those people do suffer after they come back, however, and it is thanks to us sending them there-our decision in this place. We decide to send them to Afghanistan. They face all those privations, they come back and many experience prison or mental, drug or alcohol problems thereafter, and we have to bear responsibility for that and put it right.
	The military covenant aspect of the Bill is in some ways the most important part, although all the legislation has much to recommend it. With that as a background, it is important that we first thank and congratulate the Government on their commitment to recognise the military covenant and to put it into law. Secondly, we should very much recognise that they have taken some steps to do so, and that in the Bill we have clause 2. because in the military covenant's long history it has never once been recognised in law.
	Without being difficult, however, I have a couple of questions for the Government on which Ministers might choose to brood before they come to reply. First, I have some difficulties with the constitutional aspect of taking something that should be a ministerial or political duty and trying to put it into law. Law is something for which there is a sanction if it is not adhered to, so I wonder what would happen if some subsequent Government-I am sure not this one-20 years from now failed to fulfil the covenant. What would be the sanction against the Secretary of State? Would he come before the House and get ticked off? Would he go to prison, pay a fine or lose his job? What would be the sanction inherent in the Secretary of State failing to perform under clause 2? The same applies to a number of Bills that we passed before the general election on climate change and child poverty. They are not capable of sanction, and I slightly wonder whether there is a constitutional difficulty with putting the covenant in the Bill as it has been. In other words, should it not be a matter about which Ministers are overwhelmingly concerned, whether or not it is written into law? If they were not, they would lose power at a subsequent general election, so there is quite an interesting constitutional conundrum in the Bill.

Dan Byles: Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is a danger regarding who decides whether the law has been broken? Will the matter go before the courts? Will we see judicial intervention on the matter of whether the Secretary of State for Defence has broken the military covenant?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point-exactly what I was driving at. Who decides whether the provisions of the clause have been achieved in years to come?
	That leads to me to the second part of my question. My party's manifesto went to great lengths to say how important the covenant was and how we as a party in government would put it into law. We talked about a broad spectrum of things in the run-up to the general election, but before us we have a relatively modest clause, simply saying that the Secretary of State will bring forward a report once a year. He will draft it and say what is in it, although it will be about education, housing and health care and in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine. So, he will sit down, write a little essay about all the things that he has done to achieve the military covenant and bring it before the House.
	We do not know from the Bill whether there will be an oral statement, thereby allowing hon. Members to question him, a written statement or a statement to the Defence Committee, thereby enabling us to scrutinise it carefully. What form will the statement take, and what powers will the House have to hold the Secretary of State's feet to the fire? Is it possible to imagine a situation in which he comes to the House and in his report says, I am extremely sorry. This year we have broken the military covenant in a great many ways and done terribly the wrong thing by our armed forces? Of course not. The Secretary of State will come along every year with his statement and say, Look what marvellous things we have done with regard to the covenant, and hope not to be too carefully cross-examined over it.
	Given how strongly I feel about the importance of the military covenant, and given that I feel we owe it to our soldiers, sailors and airmen, whom we ask to do such awful things that we ourselves would never consider doing, I slightly question-I do not mean to be disloyal-whether the clause achieves what the coalition Government set out to achieve. Is it actually a rather sad little clause? Could it be strengthened? When the Minister responds to the debate, I would like to know in particular how the Government see it operating. Will it be a mechanism by which this House holds the Government to account? Will it enable us to hold the Minister's feet to the fire and say, Secretary of State, you're not living up to the military covenant. You've broken it? Or is it just going to be a little PR exercise, enabling successive Secretaries of State to say, Haven't we done well by way of the military covenant? If it is, it will be not worth the paper it is written on.

Jack Lopresti: I declare an interest as a serving member of the reserve forces. Unlike my smart friends who were in the Chamber earlier, my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), I am a private soldier, not an officer. I had the honour and privilege of taking part in Operation Herrick 9 in Afghanistan with 3 Commando Brigade as a gunner in the ranks and enjoyed it very much, so I suppose that gives me a different perspective. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North, who said he was not going to be partisan, I am, so I hope that anybody reading  Hansard tomorrow will see that my speech was not delivered by an officer and understand where I sit on the political spectrum.
	Today's debate on the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill is most welcome. Since the first few weeks of the coalition, the Government have put the welfare of our nation's servicemen and women at the top of the political agenda and moved swiftly to ensure that any lapses in the commitment between the Government and our armed forces are rectified.

Elizabeth Truss: I am concerned that the result of the strategic defence review and the basing decisions now being taken might have caused some uncertainty-I am thinking of RAF Marham in my constituency. What is my hon. Friend's view on how to maintain the military covenant in these difficult times?

Jack Lopresti: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. We Members have a responsibility to ensure that, when there are issues in our own constituencies, we bring them to the House, question Ministers and raise them in debates, so that it is on the public record that we are doing our utmost the protect the interests of service people in our constituencies.
	I shall focus my contribution, as others Members have, on clause 2, which I very much welcome. It ensures that provision is made to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the effects of service in our armed forces and on the welfare of serving and former members of the armed forces and that of their families. That provision will ensure that the military covenant, which the Government are rebuilding, will be advanced year on year.
	We ask our armed forces personnel on operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere to face paying the ultimate price for the protection of our country, its citizens and our freedoms and way of life. We should do that only if they are properly equipped for the task, if they are trained to the highest possible level and if they and their families are provided for when they retire, or are wounded or killed, in recognition and admiration of the sacrifices that they have made.
	The unwritten contract between the state and the men and women whom we ask to defend it is rightly a long-standing tradition. In the dangerous, unstable world that we face today, and in the ongoing war on terror, its continuation and development is more important than ever before. Disappointingly, the previous Administration reneged on the covenant. They did not adequately equip our troops for the most hostile of conflicts, they neglected the welfare of our service families, our injured personnel and our veterans, and they left a £38 billion hole in the Ministry of Defence budget at a time of war.

Thomas Docherty: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his valiant service overseas; I know that he still hopes to go back.
	Government Members are so keen to talk about the £38 billion hole. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that comes from a single line of a National Audit Office report that actually said that if future Governments did not adequately fund commitments through this decade there would then be a £38 billion hole? It was not referring to the previous decades of funding, but to the forthcoming decade. It is therefore possibly not quite accurate.

Jack Lopresti: The hon. Gentleman cannot run away from the fact. There is a £38 billion hole in the budget. He can try to dazzle me with statistics and perhaps more detailed knowledge, but the fact is that there is a £38 billion deficit in the defence budget.

Charlie Elphicke: There is not only a £38 billion hole in the defence budget, but a £40 billion hole in respect of cuts that were not allocated and a structural deficit of £109 billion. Every single household in this country is effectively borrowing £4,000 this year as a result. Is that not an outrageous state of affairs?

Jack Lopresti: Yes, it is. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the debate.
	If Labour Members have any uncertainty about the extent of the neglect that they caused, the evidence in the results of the May 2010 armed forces continuous attitudes survey may offer some clarification. It showed that just 32% of serving personnel said that they felt valued. Let today's debate be one of the first crucial steps that we take to restore the moral commitment that was broken-the crucial step that will ensure that our armed forces have the support that they need and that their families and former service personnel are treated with the dignity that they deserve.
	It was a great encouragement that on 11 June last year, not even a month into the new Parliament, the Prime Minister announced that the operational allowance for the armed forces would be doubled and backdated from 6 May. From the very start, the Government have ensured that the welfare of our service personnel is at the very top of their agenda.
	In the programme for government, the coalition set out its policies for rebuilding the military covenant, all of which are aimed at improving the welfare of service personnel, veterans and their families. That is more than just words on a page; the Government have acted swiftly to ensure that the military covenant will be enshrined in law so that never again will our promise to the servicemen and women of our country be broken. The informal understanding of the state's duty of care to its armed forces will cease to be regarded as an obligation; it will be a firm rule that all future Governments will have to adhere to. As the Prime Minister said, the time has come for our commitment to be
	refreshed and renewed and written down in a new military covenant that's written into the law of the land.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous. He is absolutely right to say what should happen, but does he not accept that the one group of people who are not legally responsible will be the Government? They are putting legal responsibilities on local government and the health service, but not on the MOD. That is a shabby situation.

Jack Lopresti: As I just said, the fact that for the first time the military covenant will be enshrined in law is a massive step forward in accountability.
	In early December, Professor Hew Strachan published the report, commissioned by the Government, that his independent task force developed. As a demonstration of their commitment, the Government immediately began work on implementing two of the report's recommendations: the armed forces community covenant, which encourages communities across the UK to volunteer support for their local armed forces; and a Chief of the Defence Staff commendation scheme, which will allow the head of the UK's armed forces to thank individuals or bodies who give exceptional support to the armed forces. Those are great initiatives along the way to restoring the covenant, and I look forward to the full response of the defence personnel, welfare and veterans Minister to the report in the spring.

Christopher Pincher: It is a great honour to speak in this debate. I am conscious that night draws inexorably onwards, so I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
	This debate on the Armed Forces Bill is an historic one. That is not so much because of the provisions, some of which may appear a little pedestrian, but because it is one of the great parliamentary symbols, such as the Outlawries Bill or the Septennial Act-one of the great reminders of the struggles that we have had through the centuries to build liberty over tyranny in our country. Some Members have already mentioned that we now ask our servicemen and women more often to go abroad and fight for liberty, to protect our liberty here at home.
	Each Armed Forces Bill seems to contain some innovation; as a new boy, I am learning that. The last such Bill-now an Act-enshrined a single set of military law. The great innovation of this Bill is to provide the Secretary of State with an obligation to prepare and present to Parliament an armed services report-a military covenant report, if you will-that will detail a range of issues in the Bill. I am thinking of how the Government and the nation will build their responsibilities in respect of our armed forces.

Bob Russell: As the Royal British Legion has driven the updating of the military covenant, perhaps its representatives should be involved in the Secretary of State's annual report to make sure that they are satisfied.
	Incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise. I said that you had signed the early-day motion that I mentioned. That was not quite correct. You seconded it.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister will take account of his suggestion that the Royal British Legion should be able to give advice about the content of the report.
	Many Members have focused on clause 2, and that demonstrates its importance and the interest that we all have in it. Last year, the Prime Minister said that we all-the Government, the private sector and voluntary organisations-have a responsibility to go that extra mile for our armed forces. There is no doubt that over the past several years, our armed forces family and those beyond it have taken the view that we have not gone the extra mile for them.
	Colleagues have already mentioned that on the very day of the general election last year, the armed forces continuous attitudes survey showed that just 32%-less than a third-of our armed forces feel that they are valued. Such a report on such a day sent a clear message to the outgoing Government that soldiers, sailors and airmen and women felt that that Government had failed them. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I should say that it sent a clear message to the incoming Government that our military expects a lot more of them.
	The writing has been on the wall for a few years. General Guthrie said as far back as 2007 that the Government were failing to keep their side of the bargain in the military covenant. A friend serving in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers who has been to Afghanistan said the same thing in rather more colourful language that it is not parliamentary to repeat here this side of the watershed. If personnel from the Chief of the Defence staff all the way down to a solider driving a recovery vehicle around Helmand are saying the same, we have a real challenge to rebuild faith between our national leaders and our armed forces. That is a challenge the Government must meet. In introducing the Bill and clause 2-the provision for the military covenant report-we are beginning to meet that challenge. We are sending a signal to our armed forces that the things that they and their friends and families are concerned about are the things that the Government are also concerned about and will act upon. I commend clause 2.
	I hope that when the Secretary of State and his colleagues consider what should be included in the report-my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) made this point-they will take great heed of and look closely at the work of Professor Strachan and his taskforce and their recommendations to bring to life the military covenant. Two things need to be included in the report to give it teeth: first, forces' accommodation, which has already been mentioned and is in the Bill and the Strachan report; secondly, personnel kit and training, which is neither in the Bill nor the Strachan report, unless I have missed it.
	It is a very old joke to say that soldiers like to grumble, but it is no joke when 36% of servicemen and their families who live in services accommodation say that the accommodation is below standard. That is one of the biggest complaints I hear from my friends and constituents who are in the military. If we are prepared to send young men and women overseas to risk their lives, we can at least ensure that we give them and their families a decent roof over their heads here at home. I therefore hope that the Government will look closely at the Strachan recommendations to enhance accommodation allowances. I know that we are in difficult economic straits, but I hope that the Government will consider that recommendation.
	I also hope that the Government will consider expanding the shared equity scheme pilot introduced by the previous Government, and that the Secretary of State will ask the Chancellor to sit down with the banks and persuade them to offer forces-friendly mortgages, so that we can get more service people into their own accommodation. It seems to be a sensible long-term aspiration to offer servicemen and women and their families the opportunity of a stable home with a fixed address and a foot on the property ladder. Incidentally, that would also offer an opportunity to the Ministry of Defence to reduce some of the forces' accommodation costs, which are currently running at about £285 million a year. The state of some services accommodation, which needs to be improved, means that those costs will only increase. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the recommendations of the Strachan report, and I hope particularly that the Treasury will be invited to look at them.
	I would also like to discuss servicemen and women's kit and training. Those issues have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)-neither of whom is in his seat-which demonstrates there is some bipartisanship on the issue. One of my oldest friends is an officer serving with the Royal Welsh who has two tours of Afghanistan under his belt. An issue that he raises continually with me is that although, as Members from all parties have said, it is right that the kit provided to servicemen and women deployed to operations has improved considerably, the time available to train in the kit has not. All too many of them say that all too often kit such as the ACOG rifle sight and Osprey body armour are provided only just before they deploy on operational service, so they are not as prepared as they might be because they have not had enough time to train with it before they deploy. We are also told that Vallon metal detectors, which are essential in identifying mines, are not widely available for training purposes, as that sort of kit should be. I hope that when my right hon. and hon. Friends think about the content of the covenant report, they will consider including such issues so that our service men and women feel that we are as serious about their safety abroad as we are about their welfare here at home.
	In a short space of time, and despite the difficult economic circumstances that we face, the Government have made some great strides forward in rebuilding the military covenant by doubling the operational hours, maximising R and R, introducing the covenant report, investing £189 million in new kit, and spending another £67 million on countering IEDs. That shows that they have an unbending resolve to support the welfare of our armed forces, and I hope that we get that message across.
	I have been looking at the MOD website, where there is a quote that defines a serviceman's covenant:
	In putting the needs of the Nation, The Army and others before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. So, at the very least, British soldiers should always the expect the Nation and their commanders to treat them fairly, to value and respect them as individuals, and to sustain and reward them and their families.
	That is as succinct and straightforward a compact as could be written, and I trust that the Secretary of State will include it as the foreword to his every report.

Oliver Colvile: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate.
	I am a Member of Parliament for one of Britain's principal naval ports and the issues raised in this Bill will resonate in one of the homes of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. In the course of the past 10 years, I have promised that I would say to Ministers that Plymouth is not Portsmouth-we are not 20 minutes away from Bristol, and we need to ensure that we are not ignored. One of the things that the Government could do, if they were so minded, is to consider making Plymouth the centre for the veterans weekend in 2012. I know very well that my right hon. Friends have heard that before, but it is worth repeating on a regular basis.
	Going to war is not just about bombs and bullets; rather, it is about those people who put their lives at risk to defend British interests, and about protecting our freedoms and our way of life. If we expect our servicemen and women to fight for this cause, we have to make sure that they feel valued-that is incredibly important. This Bill, together with the military covenant, goes some way towards delivering that, and I hope that it will play very well down in Plymouth.
	In just a few weeks' time, 3 Commando Brigade, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) served a little while ago, and which is based in my constituency, will be deployed back in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 14. War, of course, is not a means in itself-it is the final episode following our failure, as politicians, to get a diplomatic solution to the problems that face regions of the world. I have always been, and am, very supportive of the interventions that we have made in Iraq and in Afghanistan, but I am well aware that we failed to think through the exit strategy that would leave those countries with a stronger political leadership and able to deliver peace and a strengthened economy. The public were initially behind both conflicts, but as time moved on, the number of casualties rose and they looked increasingly like becoming stalemates, so public support waned.
	The quid pro quo for those who fight for their country is that they should be valued. I hope that the Bill goes some way towards delivering on that contract. As an aside, I believe that we must spend more time and effort in looking at ways to avoid conflict. The old adage that prevention is better than cure rings true. For too long, we have seen defence just in terms of scenes from films such as Saving Private Ryan. Our priority should be to do more to prevent conflicts and to ensure that servicemen and women are valued when they make their sacrifices. Placing a warship in a port can make a real statement. When President Obama put a US aircraft carrier off Korea recently, it helped to calm down the potential for conflict in the far east.
	Inevitably, war has produced dreadful legacies not only in the countries where conflicts have taken place, but for the lives of servicemen and women and their families. That is why I will certainly support the Bill in the Lobbies tonight, should there be a Division. It will make it a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State for Defence to make an annual report to Parliament on the military covenant. I take on board the points of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). One thing that we can do is to ensure that we have a regular debate of this sort for a full day, just as we are doing today, so that such issues can be aired.
	The Bill will enshrine the military covenant in law. If we are asking our service personnel to put their lives on the line, Parliament must not only give them the kit, pay and the health and social conditions to do the job; the military covenant says that the state should also maintain a long-term duty of care for them and their families.

Bob Stewart: When the names of the casualties are read out in this House, we always say, We will remember them. That places on us a requirement to remember them by looking after their wives, children and husbands for the rest of their lives. That is included in the military covenant, although it may not be written down. We have a responsibility to care deeply for people who have given their lives in the service of our country. We must not just say, We will remember them, because we do not remember them individually, but we should remember them by caring for the people whom they have left behind.

Oliver Colvile: My hon. Friend makes a fair and timely point. Shortly before Christmas, I attended a Christmas party for the families of serving personnel with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). Those families were apprehensive about the departure of their partners and family members to Afghanistan and prayed that they would come back without physical or mental injury.
	That brings me to the crux of what I wanted to say: mental health among veterans is a growing problem. This weekend, I was told by Combat Stress that the King's Centre for Military Health Research published a report recently that warned that almost a quarter of Iraq veterans admitted to suffering from mental ill health. Many have depression and turn to alcohol and drugs. In my city of Plymouth, we have to come to terms with that issue.

Alison Seabeck: Will the hon. Gentleman, from my neighbouring seat in Plymouth, join me in commending Hasler Company at HMS Drake, which I was fortunate enough to visit again last Friday, for the excellent work that it does for people with complex problems, particularly mental health problems? Will he join me in encouraging it to keep doing what it is doing? Sadly it needs some additional funding. It is getting some from the Royal British Legion, I believe, and certainly from Help for Heroes, and I hope that the Government will consider supporting it as well.

Oliver Colvile: I most certainly join the hon. Lady in that, and I thank her for her intervention-I must say that I have some trepidation when Members decide to intervene on me, for obvious reasons.
	The King's Centre found that nearly 5% of Iraq veterans display symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. It believes, having projected its statistics on to the 180,000 servicemen and women who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that as many as 48,000 veterans could suffer from some form of mental health problem, and that 9,000 could potentially develop PTSD.
	Last October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Government would implement the recommendations of the excellent Fighting Fit report written by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who sadly is not in his place at the moment. I pay tribute to him for the hard work that he undertook. The report contains 13 action points, including funding for an additional 30 mental health nurses and a dedicated 24-hour helpline for veterans.
	The 2011 to 2015 Ministry of Defence business plan outlines a number of deadlines, including for drawing up a detailed plan to implement the recommendations of my hon. Friend's report. I understand that that plan was completed in December. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could confirm when and if it will be published and put into the public domain. I would be grateful also if he could explain why the MOD's structural reform plan monthly implementation update is still not complete, despite the deadline having been in November. I am happy for him to write to me about that, so I am not asking for a result this evening. Perhaps he could tell me when the production of the update might be achieved.
	I know that there is a March deadline in the MOD's business plan for the introduction of 30 mental health nurses, and it would be helpful if we could be told whether that is still on track and what measures the Government are undertaking to deliver greater co-ordination between the charitable sector, Plymouth city council and other organisations.

James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must know not only when the Government are going to implement the recommendations in the excellent report by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) but whether that implementation will be fully funded? There is precious little purpose in having the report in the first place if its 13 recommendations are not fully funded. I hope that the Minister will let us know whether those recommendations will be funded to the letter.

Oliver Colvile: That is a very fair point.
	Plymouth is proud of its Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Army heritage. It has a large number of veterans-I suspect, although I have no proof, that it has one of the largest numbers in the south-west. It is a wonderful place to which to retire, where people can play golf and sail, and there seem to be an awful lot of people there who have been in the services. I understand that Combat Stress now has a regional welfare officer working in Sir Francis Drake's home city, and I look forward to meeting the welfare officer in the near future.
	All of us in Plymouth want to play a significant part in delivering the reforms that the Bill heralds. I would welcome a chance to meet Ministers to discuss how we might work with our friends in the Department of Health, the city council, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and other charitable organisations to help the Government implement the Fighting Fit agenda in our historic part of the south-west. Failure to get the matter right in that city, which I am proud to represent, could have a severe impact on our local services, so I firmly believe that it needs to be action stations today.

Charlie Elphicke: I represent Dover and Deal, which today still feels like they are at the front line of the nation in its dealings with the continent, not all of which have been happy in the past. Not so long ago, in the second world war, we were the front line and responsible for helping ensure the success of Dunkirk. Before that, in the 18th century, the channel fleet was stationed off the coast of Deal and we retain a strong link with the Royal Marines. I was privileged to be at the installation of the captain general of the Royal Marines as the captain of Deal castle. We also have the lord warden of the cinque ports in Walmer castle, Admiral Boyce, and a brigadier in Dover castle.
	The constituency feels strongly about the military covenant. It has a strong cadet movement. It is a privilege for me to be the honorary president of the Deal Air Training Corps, 2235 squadron. It is a considerable privilege for us to have so many Gurkhas living in Dover and Deal, who go on active service and do great things for our nation. I am therefore proud of what our constituency has achieved in the service of this nation and of our military links. The constituency takes a strong and passionate view of the military covenant.
	As someone who deeply respects all those who put their bodies and minds in danger on our behalf, I want to stress how pleased I am that we are finally putting the military covenant on to a statutory footing in clause 2. It is absolutely right that the Bill will give the military covenant the increased recognition that it should have had long ago. By enacting the measure, we will give legislative force to the Army Doctrine Publication, particularly chapter 1.
	However, it is not a no-cost option to back the military covenant in statute. With it comes responsibility, which, in recent years, has been lacking. We must ensure that service personnel and their families are properly cared for, not only in health but when they are hurt, particularly when that hurt happens on active service. What has been going on is not good enough. However, each small measure brings us closer to what we mean by the term military covenant.
	I can do little better than quote from chapter 1 of the Army Doctrine Publication, which states:
	Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices-including the ultimate sacrifice-in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of the nation and the Army before their own, they forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families) will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service... This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant.
	Chapter 3 states:
	The system's loyalty to the individual-its obligation in the Military Covenant-is manifested in justice, fair rewards, and life-long support to all who have soldiered.
	The reason for the national debate on the military covenant is the sense that that lifelong support had wavered, that the nation was not completely on the side of the military, as it should have been, and that the military did not have the backing and support that it should have had.
	Recently, senior officers such as Lord Guthrie, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said:
	There is now a feeling-probably stronger than I can ever recall-that the Government are not keeping their side of the bargain and honouring the Military Covenant.
	General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, said in his Chief of General Staff's briefing team report in June 2007:
	My firm aim is to restore the balance of the Military Covenant-it is clearly out of kilter at the moment.
	The Royal British Legion raised its concerns in its general election manifesto, It's time to do your bit. It called for Government action to ensure three key matters: that families of service personnel were properly looked after; that bereaved families were given the support that they need, and that veterans were properly looked after, with health care and poverty fighting prioritised. These points were hammered home to me by my own excellent and active British Legion in Deal, which time and again has raised this issue and pressed for action. Wider concerns have also been raised about mental health, forces accommodation-we often hear about that-armed forces equipment and personal kit, compensation, and even voter registration. As a result of these concerns, morale in our armed forces is not as high as it should be.
	The latest armed forces survey found that only 35% of personnel were satisfied with equipment and only 32% felt valued at a basic level, while 37% said morale was too low and 36% said accommodation was not good enough. Such statistics should concern all Members, and they highlight why it is right that in bringing forward clause 2 we hammer home that we are on the side of our armed forces, so that they know that when we put them in harm's way and they are under fire, our hearts and minds are with them and they have our full support and backing.
	The clause's requirement that the Secretary of State must make a report every year is welcome because it will focus minds that bit more. It is right that health, education and housing should be specifically listed, and I hope that the Secretary of State will also consider including priority health care. I look forward to seeing the new tri-service covenant. Priority health care matters a lot because survey after survey has shown that most GPs have not got a clue about that principle and most hospitals do not know much about it either. We must hammer home the message that our armed forces and veterans should have that priority.

Bob Russell: The House of Commons Library has produced an excellent research paper briefing, and I suggest that Ministers should take into account what it says. It observes that the Bill does not explicitly state what welfare provisions must be provided for under the military covenant, such as priority health care, or any minimum standards of care. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the sort of detail that we will want in the Bill when we get it into Committee?

Charlie Elphicke: I am not certain that just chucking that in the Bill is the most important thing, but I hope very much that the Secretary of State will pick up on my hon. Friend's comments, and also on the other issues mentioned, and that he will make sure that they are given a proper hearing and are properly understood. I hope he will make sure he puts them in his report.
	We should enable the Secretary of State to have that kind of flexibility because other issues that our armed forces are very concerned about, and that will need to be addressed, will arise. The three issues I have mentioned are included in the Bill, but I hope that priority health care will be as well. It is important that when people who serve in our nation's cause return home, they are properly looked after, because they are much more likely to have serious health issues, mental as well as physical. It is right that we as a country honour that covenant and ensure that they get priority treatment because of their service.
	It is right that we should have had Professor Strachan's report. I do not agree with the Opposition that it is just a damp squib that is a bit wishy-washy and not very interesting. It is important that there is the armed forces community covenant. It is important that the accommodation scheme, which is there to thank people who give their support through the armed forces, is in place, because it will engender a sense of direction and the message that it is right to be on the side of our boys and girls out in the field and that we should support our armed forces.
	It is also right that the Government give further, and more detailed, consideration to the other measures that were in the report. That is why the Opposition are wrong to write off this report. It encourages greater help in respect of military housing and greater home ownership. It also proposes that there should be a champion for veterans and better training.
	We have also discussed the issue of medals this evening. Some want to hand them out like confetti at a wedding, while others want to be more parsimonious. Whatever happens in that respect, it is important that the MOD makes the following change: the citations for medals should be public from the beginning. I have a constituency case involving a Mr Pile who has written to me saying that he wants to tell his children about his father's heroic activities. What could be better than for someone to balance their kids on their knee and say, Do you know what your grandfather did? He served heroically, he got a medal and here is the citation? But he cannot get his own father's citation, because he fell out with his stepmother and his father is dead, so the MOD has said, Sorry, data protection! You can't know the citation. So he cannot tell his own children.

Bob Stewart: Actually, he can get his citation, if it is a gallantry award, because it will be in the  London Gazette, unless there are special circumstances. If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be citations for campaign medals, that is extremely difficult, because everyone who serves for 28 days-or whatever the qualifying period is-gets the medal. The only way someone could get a citation for that is to understand what the campaign was about. Citations for gallantry medals are obtainable via the  London  Gazette.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. This issue was raised with me, and the MOD wrote to me saying, Data protection means that we cannot tell you. The position is ludicrous. All medal citations should be automatically public and transparent.
	Finally, the doubling of the operational allowance and the Government's efforts to increase the rest and recuperation for military personal have been positive steps. However, there needs to be an improvement on kit and operational duties. That is vital. We have started to see that, which I welcome, and I also welcome the Bill and the military covenant finally being enshrined in law.

Gemma Doyle: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).
	We have made it clear that Labour will support the Bill, not least because it is a continuation of key reforms introduced by the previous Government. The Armed Forces Act 2006 resulted in the biggest overhaul of the system of military law for 50 years. It consolidated and modernised all the previous service discipline Acts and replaced them with a single system of service law applicable to all service personnel wherever they are based in the world. The Act introduced a fair, modern system of criminal justice to the armed forces while recognising the special circumstances, risks, dangers and demands that we place on service personnel.
	The Bill will build on the 2006 Act and introduce other important reforms, including measures to increase the powers of the service police and provisions to strengthen their structural independence. The Bill will ensure that the service police disciplinary systems are consistent with the European convention on human rights; introduce the service sexual offences prevention orders to protect members of the service community outside the UK; strengthen the independence and impartiality of service complaints and procedures; and update regulations protecting prisoners of war detained by UK forces. We on the Labour Benches welcome those changes.
	The reforms that we introduced in the 2006 Act, which will be continued and updated through this Bill, were part of a wider body of work by the previous Government not just to improve the system of law governing the armed forces, but to show our wider commitment to the brave servicemen and women in recognition of the unique contribution they make on our behalf. We have heard many excellent speeches in which numerous Members have praised our armed forces. They are right to do so, and I will add my own tribute, particularly to those serving in Afghanistan right now. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women who do extremely dangerous and difficult work in conflict zones all over the globe. They are a generation who have seen active service in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, working hard to protect us and make our world a safer place.
	We must not forget those who have gone before, those who have been injured and those who have lost their lives-veterans of conflicts going right back to world war two-who fought to secure the freedom that we enjoy today; and we must not forget the families of our armed forces and veterans. It places great strain on loved ones when husbands and wives, mothers and fathers and sons and daughters spend many months at a time away from home. Service families make huge sacrifices to support those on the front line, and we owe them just as big a debt of gratitude as we do those in combat. We owe it to them to help them address the unique challenges they face as the families of servicemen and women. We also heard today about the important role of reservists and cadets from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and other hon. Members, some of whom are reservists themselves.
	The previous Labour Government were the first to deliver a cross-government approach to forces welfare. The service personnel Command Paper, published in summer 2008, set out improved access to housing schemes and health care, free access to further and higher education for service leavers with six years' service, and extended travel concessions for veterans and those seriously injured. We guaranteed fair pay for all our forces-that included the first ever tax-free bonus for those on operations abroad-while strengthening our support for their welfare. We invested hundreds of millions of pounds to reverse a legacy of decades of neglect in forces accommodation. The level of homelessness among service leavers was sharply reduced and the law was changed to give them better access to social housing. We also introduced Armed Forces day and veterans badges to make sure that the achievements and contributions of all our armed forces heroes are properly recognised.
	Labour's 2010 manifesto proposed enshrining in law the rights of forces, their families and veterans in an armed forces charter, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned. I am delighted that this Government have agreed on the need to improve the military covenant by guaranteeing rights in law, although we still await specific plans to make that a reality.
	We heard much about rebuilding the military covenant, including in considered contributions from the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). As the Opposition, we have made it clear that we will support the Government on measures to show further our commitment and duty of care to our armed forces. However, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, we have some important questions for the Government on their position on the military covenant.
	The Bill contains a specific proposal that the Secretary of State will publish an annual report on the Government's progress on the military covenant. We have heard discussion of the external reference group, which the previous Government established to chart the progress made by Departments in delivering the commitments made to our armed forces in the service personnel Command Paper. The ERG includes representatives from service charities and service families federations, and provides an unbiased and independent progress report. I am aware that informal assurances have been given that the group will be consulted, but that is quite different from the ERG producing its own report. Unfortunately, MOD Ministers were accused in newspaper reports yesterday of politicising the military covenant. That may not be the intention of the Government, but we are very concerned that the important independent scrutiny in the form of a progress report by the ERG is being removed. That concern was raised by the shadow Secretary of State, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and by some on the Government Back Benches, including the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). The Royal British Legion has called for an assurance to be given that the ERG will be retained and will continue to produce its own annual report. As such, I urge the Government to re-examine the matter to ensure that both Parliament and the public have an objective view on the Government's progress or otherwise. If that does not happen, the independent expert scrutiny provided by the group may well, unfortunately, be lost.

James Gray: Excellent as the external reference group is, does the hon. Lady agree that it has one major defect, which is that it is not answerable to this House? The Bill's proposal strengthens that area considerably by saying that Ministers must come here to explain to us what they have done on the military covenant. That does not happen with the existing report.

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As we have said, we welcome the fact that such a debate will take place in this House. However, as I have also said, we are in danger of losing the independent scrutiny that the ERG provides and we do not want that to happen.

Alison Seabeck: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comments about the ERG, because I am sure that we will want to tease out and press these issues a little further in Committee. If she intended to cover this next issue later, I hope she will forgive me for asking about it now. I visited my local naval base on Friday, when I was made aware that the MOD police are very concerned about cuts in their numbers as a result of cutbacks. How will that affect their ability to carry out the additional investigative work that is set out in the Bill, which of course we welcome?

Gemma Doyle: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the gap between Government rhetoric and action. The cuts mean that we will not necessarily see action living up to what is being promised. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said that we need some indication of what the outcome of the covenant report will be. It would be appreciated if the Minister said whether there will be any tangible measure of whether the Government have made progress on armed forces welfare.
	As I have said, we are awaiting specific proposals from the Government on what the new covenant will include and when it will be written into law as promised. We do not yet know what welfare provisions will be included, or what minimum standards of care there should be under the military covenant. Some existing problems were raised by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). The Government commissioned a taskforce to make recommendations, and it has now reported. They have accepted two of the taskforce's recommendations, but we are still waiting for the full response.
	When the Government do make their full response, they should pay due attention to the taskforce's view that
	Meeting obligations to the military community should not impose significant costs on local government.
	I would be grateful for a guarantee that any measures that are implemented as part of the military covenant will be fully costed and funded, and that the costs will not merely be passed on to local authorities or the NHS.
	I raise with the Minister, as I did at Defence questions last month, the issue of the veterans card, which the taskforce specifically recommended. The previous Government proposed introducing a veterans card, which would help service providers to identify former members of the armed forces to enable them to get better treatment and better access to treatment. At that time, the plans were welcomed by the Royal British Legion, but since coming into power the Government have scrapped those plans and the veterans Minister, in letters to hon. Members, ruled out an ID card for veterans. Given that the taskforce has recommended that, will the Minister now give a specific commitment, which he did not do last month, to reconsider that matter and the Government's position on the veterans card?
	The taskforce report appears to encourage home ownership to reduce the cost of upgrading existing service accommodation. Measures that assist service personnel to gain better access to the housing market are welcome, but can the Minister give a guarantee that the policy of merely encouraging greater home ownership among the armed forces will not be adopted instead of upgrading service accommodation? The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife rightly acknowledged that we have some way to go on that.
	The taskforce report suggests that service personnel should be shown special treatment where individuals have been seriously injured, and we obviously support that view, but the taskforce report also states that it
	has assumed that it is not the role of the government to provide special privileges for Service personnel across the board.
	The idea behind the military covenant is surely that the unique nature of military service should be recognised in the provision that the Government make for their servicemen and women. Can the Minister say whether the taskforce was correct to make that assumption, and does he agree that the Government should not provide special privileges for service personnel across the board? That would somewhat change the expected nature of the covenant and the legislative entitlements that have been promised.
	Much of the report focuses on suggested measures to be taken at local level. Indeed, one of the two accepted recommendations, which has already been implemented, is on the armed forces community covenant. That is a welcome step. The Government must, however, be careful about being over-reliant on local measures to reinforce the military covenant. Indeed, the report highlights problems with the application of a 50% council tax discount for those serving overseas. That highlights the postcode lottery that can result when decisions are taken locally. A heavy reliance on local and voluntary measures would contradict the Government's stated intention to enshrine the military covenant in law.
	Parties on both sides of the House have pledged to support the memorial to the 55,573 airmen of Bomber Command who died in world war two. The Bomber Command Association raised the £5 million necessary to pay for the memorial in Green park, but the Government scheme that exempts memorials from VAT expired on 4 January. The association is now faced with raising another £250,000. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor and has he requested that the Treasury waives the VAT to allow the memorial to go ahead?
	I have covered some of the specific questions about the content of the taskforce's report, but let me return to some of the more general issues. I want to know what more we can expect from the Government. In opposition, they said that the covenant was shattered, but in government they have failed to match their bold promises to rebuild the covenant with sufficiently tough action. The Conservative manifesto states:
	Our brave men and women, their families, and our veterans deserve the best for putting their lives on the line to protect our liberties. We will ensure they get the best.
	No one would disagree with that, but it does not fit with the Government's actions now that they are in office. The Prime Minister established a taskforce and asked it to come up with low-cost, innovative policy options. Can the Minister look our brave armed forces in the eye and say that they will get the best when his Prime Minister has asked for policy options, but only on the cheap?
	Since taking office, the Government have appointed a taskforce to suggest some low-cost measures. There is no doubt that many of the measures included in the report, such as the veterans card scheme, could make a difference, but the overall content of the report was labelled incredibly wet and feeble by the chairman of the Forces Pension Society, as was mentioned earlier. Essentially, the Government will need to do a lot better and improve drastically on their record so far. They have failed to bring forward a comprehensive package of proposals to back up the rhetoric that they will rebuild the covenant. The action they have taken has completely undermined those discussions.

Charlie Elphicke: In fairness to those on the Front Bench, Rome was not built in a day, particularly when it had been destroyed over 13 years.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am afraid that neither was it built on the cheap. We are awaiting a bit more action from the Government.
	Let us take as an example the Government's plans to link public sector pension rises to CPI rather than RPI inflation, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East. They explained that that will impact disproportionately on members of the armed forces, who draw down their pension much earlier than other public sector workers. Servicemen and women, some of whom have suffered horrendous injuries in battle, could see the value of their pensions reduced by hundreds of thousands of pounds. War widows will be affected likewise. The change is fundamentally unfair to the very people who give their service to defend our way of life, and that is why we have suggested an alternative and potentially fairer approach.
	The Government have also been accused of a betrayal by forces families following their decision to scrap major reforms to the system of inquests into military deaths. The changes that the previous Government legislated to introduce and that were due to be implemented imminently were supported by service charities and families. The Coroners and Justice Act 2009 would have delivered a better inquest service and ensured that the coroner undertaking military inquests had the training necessary to conduct an effective investigation. It would also have created a system of appeals against coroner's decisions.
	Anyone who has lost a loved one has the right to know and understand the full circumstances surrounding their relative's death. Families need to have confidence in the inquest system and these changes would have made a huge difference. By scrapping the chief coroner and abandoning the reforms that families want, the coalition has made a real error. In Committee on the Public Bodies Bill in the other place, their lordships voted to save the office of the chief coroner by a substantial majority. I hope that the Government will reconsider their view on this matter.

James Gray: The coroner has been mentioned several times this evening. Will the hon. Lady take this opportunity to say that the coroner in Oxfordshire in days gone by and, more particularly, David Masters, the excellent coroner in Wiltshire, have done a superb job of running inquests over the past few years? Leaving aside the debate on the chief coroner that she has described, the system at the moment works rather well.

Gemma Doyle: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I would certainly agree that we want that excellence to be available throughout the United Kingdom, which is why we support these reforms.
	These issues seriously undermine the covenant as well as the Government's claims that they are seeking to rebuild it. It is no wonder that the chairman of the Forces Pension Society said:
	I have never seen a Government erode the morale of the armed forces so quickly.
	For the sake of morale in the armed forces and for the sake of our individual servicemen and women and their families, I sincerely hope that the Government will rethink their actions.
	The debate has given us an opportunity to discuss the finer points of this important Bill, which builds on the work done by the previous Government in overhauling many procedures in the armed forces, particularly in relation to military justice and discipline. The Bill will ensure that the armed forces can perform more effectively, and it will make the lives of our service personnel safer. The debate has also given us the opportunity to contrast the Government's rhetoric on the military covenant with their record of action. They have been found wanting, and they must reconsider their approach to the covenant.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have participated in the debate. After hearing the rather fierce winding-up speech by the shadow Minister, I point out that two Labour Back Benchers participated in the debate and that substantially more Conservative Back Benchers took part, which shows how much interest there has been in the House.

Jim Murphy: And a Liberal.

Andrew Robathan: If the right hon. Gentleman were any good at maths, he would work out that one Liberal means that at least five Labour Back Benchers should have participated.
	Leaving that to one side and returning to the Bill, the Government are required to introduce an Armed Forces Bill every five years, because those Bills provide the legal basis for the armed forces and for their discipline. Five years ago, the Armed Forces Act 2006 established a single system of service law, which applies to all members of the armed forces wherever they are serving in the world. It was a significant piece of legislation. The Bill that we are considering today is much smaller, and a lot of it was implemented under the previous Government. We are, in fact, pursuing the policies that the previous Government introduced, so I was particularly saddened by the shadow Secretary of State's extraordinary speech.  [ Interruption. ] The term that applies to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is chuntering.
	The covenant has engendered a great deal of discussion in the debate, and we are fulfilling the Prime Minister's pledge to put the matter on a statutory basis in this Bill. Every year, there will be a report on the covenant, which the House may wish to discuss. Returning to the hon. Members who have spoken, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster), who is an extremely sensible friend, made some interesting points. He asked about the air bridge, which we are working on. Because, like me, he has travelled on it and been delayed on it, he knows that part of the problem is the age of the aircraft. He asked whether we will add days lost on rest and recuperation to post-tour leave, which is now our policy and is happening already.
	My hon. Friend gave his view, which comes from serving in the Territorial Army, on medals. He also mentioned reservists. I agree with him entirely that support for such servicemen who return from operational tours is difficult. I pay tribute to those whose day job is not serving in the armed forces but who go out on operational tours and do excellent work helping our regular armed forces, and I pay tribute to their families, too.
	Turning to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)- [ Interruption. ] I think that I am more Welsh than the hon. Member for Rhondda.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister withdraw that remark?

Andrew Robathan: If it is the case that the hon. Gentleman is, in fact, Welsh, contrary to all expectations and signs, of course I withdraw the remark.
	The armed forces are under-represented in the prison population. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd did not mean to do this, but it is important that we do not patronise our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who are more law-abiding than most. Of course some of them go to prison, but we are talking about responsible adults, some of whom commit crimes. Interestingly, the chances of being in prison if one has been in the armed forces are considerably less than if one has not. Our armed forces members want to be treated as responsible adults and not as victims.
	I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)-he is a doctor and he is very gallant-for his extremely important report Fighting Fit. He asked whether we should call the armed forces covenant the military covenant in the Bill and I shall look into that. There is a legal issue involved, but I can certainly say that the covenant report will not be a tick-box exercise.
	The very Welsh hon. Member for Rhondda was particularly keen on armed forces members from Wales being able to serve in Wales, but my experience of young people-both those going into the armed forces and those going to university-is that they often want to get away from their home environment. I have not heard many complaints about this before and I think they might not wish to be close to home. In my period in the armed forces, a very long time ago, I spent a disproportionate amount of my time training in Wales-in the Brecon Beacons at Sennybridge, in Snowdonia and in other places. The hon. Gentleman was very disparaging about Sennybridge, but I rather liked it.
	The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) referred to the system of having a Bill every five years as technical, but I disagree entirely. I notice that he read history, but I do not know whether he got his history degree.

Thomas Docherty: It is a work in progress.

Andrew Robathan: There is a lot of that going on.
	This is not a technical Bill: it is incredibly important. Those of us who know the history of the Bill of Rights 1689 know that it is incredibly important to have parliamentary authority for the armed forces. That remains as true today as it was more than 300 years ago; that is why we have a democracy. The hon. Gentleman then blamed the Government for the poor housing, which I thought slightly strange. He said that the money was put in place for sorting out the housing, but I think that might have been part of the £38 billion that we could not find when we came into office.
	The hon. Gentleman then spent a long time showing his prejudice against private education, harking back to the good old days of class warfare. There was no logic involved-just prejudice.

Thomas Docherty: May I clarify that I have no prejudice against people choosing to spend their own money on private health care or private education? I just object, when there are severe budget cuts for the MOD, to £110 million of taxpayers' money being spent subsidising other people's private education.

Andrew Robathan: As I explained, the reason for the continuity of education allowance is so that children do not have to change schools often. I have heard of changes more than four times in five years and I do not think that is very fair on those children or their families. With that sort of system, people would tend not to stay in the armed forces. Be they private soldiers or generals, they would say, I am not staying in the armed forces; I am going to do something else. That is the reason for the allowance. [Hon. Members: Private soldiers?] Yes, private soldiers do send their children to independent schools.  [ Interruption. ] I cannot speak on this in detail, but I assure Opposition Members-who presided over the system, which we are tightening up dramatically-that nearly 50% of those who use the continuity of education allowance are not commissioned officers.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: No, not again.
	I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) made his speech.  [ Interruption. ] That is what it says here. He particularly seeks the maximum involvement of armed forces charities in the work of the covenant and that is absolutely what we want.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) talked about the heroism in the armed forces, recognised in Wootton Bassett in his constituency, and I think that we all agree on that. He welcomed our commitment to the armed forces covenant and the fact that our manifesto commitment will be kept, but he should watch how the issue develops, because I think that he will be more satisfied than I understand he appeared to be in his speech. The provision is not a sad little clause; it is an important step forward in fulfilling our obligations to the armed forces.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his service in Afghanistan. I was glad to hear that he welcomed clause 2 and was critical of the previous Government's record on the covenant. It seems rather strange that we get criticised for all these things after seven or eight months, whereas I seem to remember that the previous Government were there for 13 years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) asked us to go the extra mile for the armed forces. He is absolutely right. They are in a unique position, and we should and will go that extra mile; we are committed to doing so. He talked about service family accommodation. We are working on improving quality. I recently cut the turf on a new estate, the Canadian estate in Bulford. It was put on hold under the last Government, but we have started again. There is, of course, a big issue about cost. We are also working towards greater home ownership. My hon. Friend may know of the new employment model, which will mean that the Army will tend to be based more in the same place, rather than moving around the country.
	I heard the plea that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) made for Armed Forces day in Plymouth, and we will certainly consider that. I absolutely agree with his central point, which is that we must make the armed forces feel valued. I know that I am a bit older than some people on the Opposition Front Bench-

Jim Murphy: All of them.

Andrew Robathan: -all of the people on the Opposition Front Bench; I can remember the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979. The pay of the armed forces was reduced so much, and was so poor, that people left in their droves, and we ended up with something called the black hole of officers. So many officers of captain and major rank left that there was a huge black hole, which was quite good for promotion, but not much good for the armed forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is extremely proud of Dover and military life there-I got that message-mentioned electoral registration. We are working on ensuring that it is easier for service personnel to register only once, because the system has become extremely complicated under quite well-meaning measures of the previous Government.
	The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), gave her first speech from the Front Bench. I congratulate her and welcome her to the Front Bench. I also welcome the service personnel Command Paper; I think that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not here, was partly responsible for it. It is basically a good piece of work that we support, and we are going forward with many of the improvements that were suggested and started by the previous Government; I think that we can say that.
	The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire then, I am sorry to say, went on about the external reference group, which we value. We have no plans to get rid of it, or to not publish its reports. It will produce a report, which will be seen and will be transparent. I assume that it will become evidence to the report on the covenant that the Secretary of State will have to make to Parliament. As I explained to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, that is about the accountability of the Government to Parliament, on which I hope we all agree. This is a non-story, a non-issue; the process will be transparent and accountable. We will listen to the external reference group, and if it does not like what we have done, I would expect it to say so. Hew Strachan and I have regular meetings. I always counsel people not to believe everything that they read in the newspapers.
	We will look at the idea of a veterans identity card, which the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire was lauding, but one of the issues that should be addressed is: who actually wants it? It is quite important that a little bit of market research is done on that, to start with. She asked whether I was having meetings with people on the Bomber Command memorial. I had a meeting just before the recess with the new chairman of the Bomber Command memorial. We had a very constructive meeting, and I am helping him on one particular issue that I do not want to get into now; difficulties had arisen over planning permission in the royal parks.
	The hon. Lady attacked us regarding the covenant. We are introducing the covenant. The Labour Government did not do so. It is rather strange to hear us attacked in such a way for what we are doing on the covenant. It is work in progress, like the degree of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

Chris Bryant: And like this speech.

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman does an awful lot of chuntering. I am surprised that anyone lets him in.
	Finally, I turn to the speech from the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State. Disappointing is the best word to describe it. He said that our attitude was heartless. He was a member of the previous Government under the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). I point out to him that one cannot spend money that one has not got. The previous Government spent it like water. They destroyed our economy.
	The right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire grins back at me. He highlighted the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to change the indexation of service pensions from RPI to CPI, so perhaps now he will stand up and pledge that should, God forbid, the Labour party be returned to government at the next election, it will return the indexation of armed forces pensions and perhaps all public service pensions from CPI to RPI.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to rise, and I encourage the Secretary of State to rise to defend his policy. The question is whether it is right to take away from war widows and those who were severely injured on the battlefield in Afghanistan pension entitlement that they had reasonably expected. Perhaps the Minister should focus less on what will be in our manifesto in two, three or four years, and more on his policy this very evening. He should try at least to do what the Secretary of State failed to do and defend his own policy.

Andrew Robathan: After that extremely long intervention, I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. He says that we are taking money away from people. We are doing nothing of the kind. That is scare-mongering. We are changing the indexation going forward, as he is well aware. We must address the huge debt left behind by the previous Government.  [Interruption.]. Opposition Members are obviously in denial. That is what we have to do.
	The Bill is important, as I have explained, because it is part of parliamentary control of the armed forces. It provides the legal basis for the armed forces to exist. Without it, there would be some rather interesting and difficult situations.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: No, I think not.
	There is an annual continuation order, which must be approved by both Houses every year. The Bill is the primary legislation, which we must have every five years, as most Members of the House know. I have a real interest in the safe passage of the Bill. Perhaps I should have declared that I am a recipient of an armed forces pension changing from RPI to CPI indexation. It will be a privilege to take the Bill through the House.
	Finally, I pay tribute to all members of the armed forces who are even now serving on duty in Afghanistan in real danger on our behalf. I also pay tribute to the families and the communities who support them.
	 Question put and agreed  to .
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

armed forces bill (programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Armed Forces Bill:
	 Select Committee
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Select Committee.
	2. The Select Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10 March 2011.
	 Committee of the whole House, consideration and Third Reading
	3. On report from the Select Committee the Bill shall be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	4. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House on re-committal, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day's sitting.
	5. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings or at the moment of interruption on that day, whichever is the earlier.
	7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House and on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed .-( Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.

armed forces bill (Money)

Queen's recommendation  signified .
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)( a )),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Armed Forces Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ARMED FORCES BILL

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill:
	1. The Committee shall have 14 members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection.
	2. The Committee shall have power-
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it;
	(b) to admit the public during the examination of witnesses and during consideration of the Bill (but not otherwise); and
	(c) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity relating to the provisions of the Bill. - (Angela Watkinson.)

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Postal services

That the draft Post Office Network Subsidy Scheme (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 November, be approved.- (Angela Watkinson.)
	 Question agreed to.

UNSCRUPULOUS LENDERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Angela Watkinson.)

Derek Twigg: First, may I express my gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to hold this debate, the first of the year, on illegal moneylending? It is held at a most poignant time, with individual and family debt increasing following the financial pressures of Christmas, the new year VAT increase, higher transport and energy costs and the spectre of public service, job and benefit cuts looming large in the UK economy. Indeed, we are in an economic climate most conducive to increasing the number of vulnerable people who fall prey to the illegal and intimidating practices of unscrupulous loan sharks, which have severe and, in some cases, devastating effects on victims, their families and the wider communities.
	It will come as no surprise to many of us that the areas with the greatest concentration of loan shark activity are deeply deprived social housing estates, as identified by Policis, the independent economic and social research consultancy, in its November 2006 report, Illegal Lending in the UK, for the then Department of Trade and Industry, arguably the best academic study of illegal lending to date.
	Those areas, largely urban conurbations and predominantly in the north, the west midlands, Scotland, Wales and the deprived parts of London, have relatively high rates of home credit exclusion, which in itself correlates strongly with deprivation. Loan sharks are illegal moneylenders: they lend without a credit licence, causing immense misery by preying on some of the most vulnerable in our society. They subject many of them to intimidation and threats of or actual violence, while charging super-inflated interest rates-sometimes about 2,500%-and arbitrary late-payment penalties.
	A particularly distressing case from my constituency of Halton is my principal reason for applying to hold this debate this evening. Brian Shields, from Runcorn, committed suicide on 3 December 2005 aged just 22. A keen sportsman and a promising footballer, he had run up debts to a loan shark, owing to the extortionate interest rate of 90% that he was charged. A debt of £300 rose to more than £3,400 in a matter of weeks.
	The illegal moneylender, Paul Nicholson, was jailed indefinitely in 2009 for offences including moneylending without a licence, blackmail and assault against a number of his victims. He was convicted of raping one woman who could not repay her debts and of threatening to petrol-bomb another woman's house. The judge in the case said it was
	deliberate, blatant, systematic and sustained intimidation,
	and Nicholson was locked up indefinitely for the public's protection.
	Brian Shields' mother, Carol Highton, also from Runcorn, hopes that the case of her son's death might at some stage be re-investigated, owing to evidence of a struggle in the house and the presence of another person shortly before he died. I pay tribute to Mrs Highton, who has been leading a campaign on behalf of families and their victims to introduce far tougher legislation to halt the practice of illegal moneylending, which takes place in a secretive and shadowy world, in clubs, pubs and bars, on mobile phones and through text messaging.
	Carol Highton believes that the death of her son Brian raises two very important issues that need to be addressed. First, not enough is being done nationally and particularly in communities of low-income and single-parent families to halt the practice of illegal moneylending and the cynical use of high interest rates to maximise profits from loans. Secondly, there might be many more suicides or attempted suicides by victims who cannot cope with the threats and intimidation that are often the trademark of loan sharks who prey on vulnerable young people and people in general. Mrs Highton believes that the wording of the Suicide Act 1961, which says that it is a crime to
	aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another,
	should apply when people are known to have taken their own lives as a result of threats and intimidation from a moneylender. If such a prosecution policy became more widespread, that would help to deter the practice.
	Mrs Highton feels that the law on assisted suicide, which carries a maximum jail sentence of 14 years, should be used to prosecute individuals whose threatening, menacing and intimidating behaviour can drive a person to take their own life, as she says happened with her own son. Will the Minister talk to his colleagues at the Ministry of Justice about that? Will the issue be considered when there is a review of criminal offences?
	On the night prior to his death, Brian received two phone messages from Nicholson demanding payment-one as late as 11.3 pm. Nicholson also imposed a £10-a-day late payment fine. At the inquest, the coroner noted that Brian had a history of drug taking and financial problems and had received threats concerning the debts.
	Since launching the Brian Shields Trust to campaign against loan sharks and provide confidential advice to victims and their families, Carol Highton has discovered that hundreds and possibly thousands of people across the country have suffered at the hands of loan sharks and have been driven to the point of suicide-in some cases, by tactics even worse than those employed by Nicholson.
	Carol has appeared many times in the broadcast and print media and is a willing and courageous campaigner, lending active support to teams across the country to help raise the profile of their work on illegal moneylending and of the misery that the practice can cause. That can include forcing victims to engage in drug running, fencing stolen goods and forced sex acts. Her work has been recognised nationally and locally, with television and community awards for her campaigning and courage and the work in close partnership with housing associations, credit unions and the police.
	National figures produced recently by Birmingham-based illegal moneylending teams show that since 2004 more than 1,700 illegal moneylenders have been identified, more than 500 arrests have been made and £37 million of illegal debts have been written off. The illegal moneylending teams throughout the regions have helped more than 16,000 victims and more than £20 million of assets are expected to be seized under proceeds of crime procedures, with £1.3 million being seized in cash.
	For the launch of the national stop loan sharks campaign video last May, the Office of Fair Trading commented that
	Nationally, the Stop Loan Sharks project has so far helped more than 11,500 people, written off more than £31 million of illegal debt, secured more than 60 years in prison sentences including an indefinite sentence for public protection, and seized £1 million in cash.
	At this point, it is worth drawing the House's attention to the illegal moneylending team structure that the previous Labour Government put in place to tackle the issue head on. It will be useful to quote from the 2009 press release of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the extension of the regional pilot schemes.
	Under the Illegal Money Lending Project the Department has been funding regional teams in Glasgow and Birmingham since 2004 to investigate the impact of strong enforcement against illegal moneylenders (loan sharks).
	In 2004, BERR invested £2.6 million in the project and secured a further £1.2m from the Financial Inclusion Fund to expand the pilot into Liverpool, West Yorkshire and Sheffield.
	In 2007/8, the project was rolled out throughout England, Scotland and Wales with an additional £2.762m from the Financial Inclusion Fund. BERR committed a total of £16.5 million to the Illegal Money lending Project since the launch of the pilot in 2004.
	It was announced In December 2007 that BERR would continue to fund an illegal money lending team in every region in Great Britain until March 2011.
	Current plans are that activity will continue at a similar level of intensity throughout the period, subject to periodic review of the impact of the initiative.
	The project is a key part of the Government's-
	that is, the then Government's-
	financial inclusion agenda, one of the aims of which is to help people gain access to affordable credit. To this end, the teams will focus on providing support to victims as well as on securing convictions against illegal lenders.
	The teams will initially target their activity in the areas identified in research published by the Department in December 2006 as areas where the incidence of illegal money is likely to be particularly high.
	I shall not list all the areas, but they include: Cardiff and Swansea in Wales; Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Newham in London; Southampton in the south-east; Newcastle in the north-east; Leeds and Sheffield in Yorkshire and the Humber; and Liverpool and Greater Manchester in the north-west. The press release went on:
	The Birmingham team expanded its existing operations to cover the North West, the South East and the East of England.
	It was also given additional funding to support increased financial inclusion and victim support activity in its existing areas: West Midlands, West and South Yorkshire, and Liverpool. The Glasgow team was given additional funding to enhance its financial inclusion and victim support work in Scotland.
	New regional teams have been established in the North East, East Midlands, South West, London and Wales, Merseyside and the North East. Since the pilots were established in September 2004, the teams have achieved a number of notable successes.
	The illegal moneylending team and the Brian Shields Trust, which work closely together, have welcomed the Minister's recent announcement that the illegal moneylending team regime is to receive Government funding of £5.2 million a year over three years. While the Government's commitment to such work is welcomed, the Brian Shields Trust points out that just over £5 million a year is only a fraction of the money that is expected to be seized in assets from illegal moneylenders under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 procedures. In the case of Paul Nicholson alone, the authorities managed to recover £800,000, although Nicholson's ill-gotten gains were originally put at £4.3 million.
	The scale of the problem-one that is likely to be made worse by the current economic climate-raises the question of whether sufficient is being invested. Will the Minister say what impact assessments have been made of the scale of the threat posed by loan sharks socially and economically, and what criteria have been established for the new funding arrangements to match the funding needs to tackle illegal lending? How can he be confident that the resources at the Government's disposal are sufficient to deal with the growing scale of the problem? Is he keeping the situation under review?
	The Brian Shields Trust wonders whether the money claimed under the Proceeds of Crime Act is new money or money reclaimed by the courts originally belonging to the victims. Would it not be fair if some mechanism were put in place to enable victims to reclaim money paid to illegal moneylenders, who are obviously operating outside the law? I also share Carol Highton's concerns about whether the replacement of the regional teams with one team for England based in Birmingham will achieve the desired result of a more robust and better restructured strategy or, as I suspect, will spread more thinly the good work that has been done in tackling loan shark practices. This is the important point I want to make to the Minister. The regional illegal moneylending teams themselves express such concerns about the proposals of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to replace them with one national body for England in Birmingham, as announced by the Minister at the end of December.
	Howard Turton, enforcement manager of the north-east illegal moneylending team, says that such a proposal would be a backward move in the fight against illegal lenders. He is on record as saying:
	We believe that the decision to deprive the North-east of a local team will be damaging to the communities we serve and is a retrograde step
	that will have
	an adverse effect on the levels of enforcement activity across the region.
	That is despite the success of the north-east illegal moneylending team, which was set up by the Labour Government exactly three years ago precisely to tackle the prevalence of illegal lending in the area. That team has written off some £2 million of illegal debt and secured the arrests of 80 illegal lenders.
	Particular successes have included the seizure of £6,000 in cash and cheques following a home and office raid during December 2009 in Redcar and three arrests in connection with the confiscation of counterfeit luxury goods. Mr Turton worries that smaller community lenders-more prevalent in the north-east-will be overlooked by a nationally based operation that is keener on targeting the really big players. As Councillor Brian Hubbard of Middlesbrough argues,
	to centralise something that essentially works better when it is localised does not make any sense.
	Indeed, surely a legitimate concern is whether local existing expertise in tackling loan shark activity and supporting its victims at the coal face will be lost in the concentration of resources to a single centre of operations.
	I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) made representations to the Leader of the House in business questions on 25 November to secure not only a Commons debate on the issue, but a top level meeting with BIS Ministers. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has admitted that some redundancies will take place among regional lending team staff, and one has to question what the uptake will be of staff accepting job transfers from the north-west and north-east to, for instance, the national Birmingham centre.
	Indeed, at a time when vulnerable people will be even more exposed to loan shark victimisation due to the austerity cuts, how can the Minister justify the sacking of existing local lending team staff, who are there to help people? That will doubtless put more pressure on already stretched Jobcentre Plus staff, who I understand will be trained in identifying those who have fallen prey to moneylenders. My local citizens advice bureau has expressed similar concerns to me. Indeed, what kind of perverse logic deems it necessary to axe the jobs of those who are there to help vulnerable people escape the traps of unemployment, indebtedness through illegal lending and, in many cases, the mental and physical ill health that is associated with it for themselves, their families and their communities? I remind the Minister that the coalition agreement said:
	Difficult decisions will have to be taken in the months and years ahead, but we will ensure that fairness is at the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected.
	I should like to make it clear that no criticism of the hard work of the illegal moneylending team in Birmingham is intended, as it has proved how successful it has been in the past four years and is doing fantastic work in setting up savings accounts and directing people towards legitimate credit unions.
	It is worth noting that more than 150 credit unions and community financial institutions have benefited from the Department for Work and Pensions growth fund and that more than 306,000 loans have been made to financially excluded people, with an estimated total value of £133 million. Given the Department's budgetary constraints, will its growth fund continue to be fully resourced to sustain these worthwhile contributions?
	The ability to access good-quality money advice and debt counselling services is an essential weapon in combating illegal moneylending and debt. With the onset of the financial crisis, the previous Labour Government recognised this and provided additional funds for money advice and debt counselling services. I pay particular tribute to the work done in this regard by Halton citizens advice bureau and Halton borough council in my constituency. What are the Government doing to strengthen debt and money advice services?
	One final thought is whether the practice of illegal moneylending is treated too much like a consumer trading offence instead of a crime under the Theft Act 1968. According to the illegal moneylending teams, prosecutions take place under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, not the Theft Act, even though the dealers are no longer licensed.
	I would very much welcome the Minister's views on these matters.

Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) for securing this debate because it gives me, as a Minister, the chance to deal with some of the detailed questions that he has put to the House and to talk about the general issue, which is a very serious one. He is right to say that it affects some of the most vulnerable in our society, on whom these illegal loan sharks prey. We as a Government are committed to building on the good work of the previous Government to ensure that we have people ready to tackle those criminals.
	The hon. Gentleman began his remarks with the tragic story of his constituent, Brian Shields, who committed suicide under the pressure of loans and loan sharks. May I send my condolences to his constituent's family and pay tribute to the work that they have done by campaigning on this issue? They have clearly made a very significant contribution.
	The story that the hon. Gentleman told about Paul Nicholson, who was a loan shark acting in his constituency, shows the significance of this crime and how devastating it can be for individuals and communities. This individual preyed on vulnerable consumers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. When he was found guilty of these crimes, he was ordered to pay back almost £1 million and sentenced to an indefinite term. The judge, rightly, was very strong in his remarks about the appalling way in which this individual had behaved. That example shows the need for vigilance and the need to invest in this area.
	The hon. Gentleman asked us to do more. I am pleased, however, that we were able to announce that we are maintaining funding for illegal moneylending teams so that next year there will be same rate of funding as this year. Given the levels of cutbacks that we are seeing in many programmes in my own Department and across the Government, that is testament to the significance that we give to this project and the value that we place on the excellent work done by the illegal moneylending teams who have been operating so well.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions about our policy in respect of illegal moneylending teams, and I want to address those directly before moving on to more general remarks. I am glad that he welcomed the investment we are making, although he asked what assessment we had made of the need and whether more money should be provided to ensure that that need was addressed. I have to tell him that-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.- (Angela Watkinson.)

Edward Davey: The evidence from the illegal moneylending teams shows that the work needs to continue. It would, of course, be nice to increase the work, because it is clearly effective. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the evaluation of the illegal moneylending project by Policis, which was published in October 2010. It concluded that the project had made an excellent start to tacking illegal moneylending, but that we needed to reform the way in which illegal moneylending teams were set up. It was very clear that larger teams that covered a wider operational area were more successful than smaller ones. That independent report, which was set up by the previous Government, recommended that the whole project should adopt that model. Although I understand the concerns of, for example, the teams in the north east, which the hon. Gentleman repeated, I refer him and the people who have those concerns to the report. It stated that we would get better value for money and be operationally more successful if we restructured in the way that we propose. No way is this some sort of cutback. The aim is to make the teams more effective in tackling the problem.
	We will also ensure that the project retains local understanding and presence. I hope that gives some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Financial inclusion officers, who can direct people to advice and support, will continue to be based locally. We are trying to get the balance between the local and national issues that he rightly talked about. I think that we can get the best value for money and make the teams more operationally effective, while still getting the important local information, under the structure that we propose.
	The number of job losses owing to the closure of regional teams will be relatively small. Our aim is to protect front-line enforcement staff numbers as far as possible and for many staff to be transferred to the Birmingham team.
	I do not agree with the idea that having a team that covers the whole of England, as well as ones that cover Wales and Scotland, will prevent the team from paying attention to small-scale illegal lenders and will mean that it focuses resources only on large-scale investigations. The project aims to have an impact across the country, and to learn the lessons of recent years. We will continue to tackle community-based loan sharks and those that operate across wider areas. There will still be the hotline number, 0300 555 2222, that people can ring and text for support and help.
	The project will play a central role in our attempt to tackle this problem. I would welcome the chance to have a wider debate on this subject, should one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues secure it from you, Mr Speaker, because I believe that we can achieve consensus in this area. We can pay tribute to the previous Government, which initiated the project. In return, I hope that this Government will get some credit for continuing the level of funding and for building on the independent report that the previous Government commissioned.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about debt and money advice, which has been raised by Citizens Advice and others. The consideration of future funding is still being worked through as the implications of the spending review are analysed, and we are waiting for Her Majesty's Treasury to come to its final conclusions, which I am sure will be announced in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be a review of criminal offences in relation to suicide. He will understand that that is a matter for Ministers in the Ministry of Justice, but I am sure that his comments will be brought to their attention.
	I am particularly delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given me this opportunity to discuss this subject, because we initiated the consumer credit and personal insolvency review last year and hope soon to begin the process of analysing all the responses that we have received. We thought it necessary to step back and examine the matter because consumer debt is such a problem. He has highlighted one extreme-unscrupulous and illegal moneylenders-and noted how damaging it can be, but I am sure that he is aware that when one looks across the landscape of debt, one sees many different problems for individuals and families.
	The numbers involved are huge, and they should worry us all. Outstanding borrowing by individuals stands at about £1.46 trillion, having more than doubled in the past 10 years. About 12 million households, just under half of all the households in the UK, have some type of unsecured debt, of an average amount of just over £10,000. We can examine the changes in more detail. In the third quarter of 2009, £44 billion was lent to UK consumers in unsecured credit, compared with about £9 billion in the same period in 1987. If we allow for inflation, that is an increase of nearly 250%. The significance of credit and debt in our society and our economy is massive, and it has created problems that previous Governments and previous generations did not have to deal with.
	Let me be absolutely clear that borrowing, in itself, is not bad. We should welcome the freedom to access credit, and credit liberalisation has been a force for good in many ways. It is excessive borrowing and irresponsible lending that causes problems, and we need to analyse it carefully. When we published the review document, I was keen, first, to examine what we might call the life-cycle of debt, starting at the point at which the decision to take on debt is made, and consider how consumers and lenders could make better borrowing and lending decisions. If we can improve the financial capability of borrowers and achieve a new culture of responsible lending, that will improve initial decision making.
	Secondly, I was keen to ensure that consumers and lenders managed their existing borrowing in a way that was much more sustainable in the long term. We want consumers to be more proactive in managing their borrowing, and thus better prepared to deal with the uncertainties that life can bring upon them, whether it be illness, unemployment or the other problems that can make borrowing arrangements and debt so damaging.
	Thirdly, I wanted to examine situations in which credit arrangements go wrong and people fall into difficulties, to ensure that people are signposted more effectively to the best possible debt advice. There is clear evidence that people with debt problems turn to the first person they come across. If that person, organisation or company is not scrupulous, they can get advice from exactly the wrong type of people. I know that the previous Government were concerned about that. There is a mirror image of the unscrupulous lenders about whom the hon. Gentleman talked-debt advice organisations that are almost as bad as loan sharks. We need to ensure that we tackle that problem, especially as so many organisations, not least citizens advice bureaux, offer exemplary debt advice services.
	I end by reiterating the hon. Gentleman's comments about the illegal moneylending teams. It was a major theme of his speech, and I want basically to agree with him. Their success to date has meant that they have arrested more than 500 illegal moneylenders, written off more than £37 million of illegal debt, which would otherwise have had to be paid back, helped more than 16,000 victims of loan sharks and seized more than £1.3 million in cash.
	That reminds me of another question, which I have not yet answered. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the new funding that we announced would come from the cash that was seized from illegal moneylenders. I am afraid that the amount of money seized from illegal moneylenders is much smaller than the sum that we have announced. As he knows from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, that money has to go back to the Treasury anyway, so there is no hypothecation or earmarking. We have not tried to make some behind-the-scenes saving-the money that we have announced is genuinely new, and I am glad that he welcomes it.
	I commend the work of all the teams. I appreciate that we are asking them to restructure, but I hope that they will examine the independent evaluation and realise that we are doing that with the benefit of analysing and valuing their excellent work in helping the victims of loan sharks, and in helping to tackle the scourge of loan sharks in our communities.
	I assure the House that the Government appreciate concerns about the availability and the consequences of consumer credit. Used sensibly and responsibly, credit is a tool for coping with life's uncertainties, but we need to gather the evidence before we introduce new rules, or else risk unintended consequences. The review that we have initiated constitutes a strategic approach to the issue, although we have already been able to act against unscrupulous lenders.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.